Conspiracy

The Lawn Coffin and Other Scary Bedtime Stories

|

If you are an avid consumer of political news, you might come across the scary story of violence-minded protesters leaving a threatening coffin on the lawn of Rep. Russ Carnahan's house, in retaliation for his health care vote. More proof, in case you needed any, that "Tea Party vigilantes" are "out for liberal blood."

If you are the kind of political news consumer that believes in hearing both sides of a story, here is a much, much different account from the protesters in question.

Expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing until November.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Skinner Gets a Stay, Pope Criticized in Latest Catholic Sex Scandal, Pot Legalization Vote in California

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Simpsons did it!

    1. These fetuses have no idea what’s coming.

      They have pushed too far and will reap the whirlwind.

      They should have just moved to France if they want French healthcare. Instead, we get to watch the world burn because they are too lazy to move to one of their socialist paradises.

      1. I predict an abortion hijack.

  2. Uh huh. So, they’re just praying for the loss of unborn babies. Not a threatening gesture, of course, but still kind of stupid. If they actually thought about it, they would know the best way to prevent abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Of course, that would mean denying the sacredness of all those millions of sperm.

    And, oh yeah, the loss of our freedom. That’s nothing new; we lost that when the PATRIOT act was signed. Of course, none of them give a shit about that.

    1. Tristan you dumb fuck. Only hard core Catholics object to birth control. None of the people who object to abortion who are not catholic have a problem with birth control.

      1. Thank you for clearing that up. Even so, I still think abortion should remain an option. Before I make any assumptions, where do you stand on the issue?

        1. I believe life begins at conception and abortion should therefore be illegal. The one legitimate role of the state is to protect the lives of its citizens.

          And I do not object to birth control, but I am under no illusions that its availability does anything to reduce unwanted pregnancy. It is more available and effective now than at any time in history, yet we still have millions of unwanted pregnancies.

          1. This is an interesting discussion we can have. However, I do not want to have it on the comment board. Mind if I email you, so that we may discuss this? I consider myself a pro-choice libertarian, so I think this might be an interesting debate. Of course, I seek to keep it civil.

            1. Keeping it civil is what got us where we are now. Too much pussy compromise all the time. Did Hamilton and Burr keep it civil? Thank science, we did not end up with a president Hamilton.

              1. It could be argued that was the only useful thing Burr did.

              2. Yeah, ’cause Adams was so cool. Hamilton might have done something silly like an Alien and Sedition Act and Adams would never do something like that!

                1. Adams vs Hamilton is another case of giant douche vs turd sandwich, Hamilton being the douche. Hamilton loved central power and economic control, didn’t give a damn about things like freedom of speech, and America would have turned out like Canada or worse.

          2. How do you square compulsory childbirth with libertarianism? I am boldly presuming you consider yourself a libertarian.

            1. My thoughts exactly.

              Pro-lifers, how do you expect to enforce this without violating the woman’s rights?

              1. Not answering for John either. But actions have consequences. Pregnancy is a foreseeable consequence of sex, even if you are using birth control. No birth control is 100% effective. It’s a risk you assume. So if you believe life begins at conception and that parents have the responsibility of raising their children then it follows that abortion should be illegal.

                1. so if the State forces one to give birth as a consequence of sex, then the State should make treating STD’s illegal AND also require pre-natal care.

                  Keep your “shoulds” off a libertarian blog, dude.

            2. Not to answer for John, but I square it the same way that I square laws that make it compulsory for parents to feed their children. Childbirth is a sometime consequence of voluntary behavior, so calling it compulsory is a bit of a stretch to begin with.

              If you are pro-choice and want to have a civil debate w/ anti-abortion folks, you’ll have to accept that they believe that a child is an individual with rights before the point of birth. You don’t have to agree with them on it, but if you don’t accept that is their base premise then it’s impossible to have the conversation.

              1. Agreed TX Limey. And if a fetus is infringing on your body, the polite thing to do would to evict it and let it attempt to live without you. Libertarian enough?

                1. Until we have something like an artificial womb, this is not viable. I still stand by my claim that one cannot enforce a ban without state/police brutality.

                  1. I think a Manhattan Project level of R&D is the only way we’ll ever get past the abortion controversy in this country.

                    What we’ll do with all the babies will be a different problem, of course.

                2. And if a fetus is infringing on your body, the polite thing to do would to evict it and let it attempt to live without you. Libertarian enough?

                  The question then is if the act of sex is implicit consent to the fetus infringing on the body.

              2. If you are pro-choice and want to have a civil debate w/ anti-abortion folks, you’ll have to accept that they believe that a child is an individual with rights before the point of birth. You don’t have to agree with them on it, but if you don’t accept that is their base premise then it’s impossible to have the conversation.

                Sure, premise accepted. Unborn people have rights too. Still, no person has the right to use the another person’s body without that person’s consent, no matter how sad the consequences of consent being withheld may be.

                I imagine you frame the issue differently: no person has the right to aggress against another absent consent. However, simply not providing what is necessary to sustain another’s life is not aggression.

                You have to toss out basic libertarian principles to get to a place where the state forces mothers to carry babies to term. That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that the “right to life” includes forcing people to sustain the life of another.

                1. no person has the right to use the another person’s body without that person’s consent

                  Agreed. The thoughtful pro-life response is that consent has been provided. Even with birth control, pregnancy is a foreseebale possibility. So if you believe life begins at conception then it’s not hard to see how there can be pro-life libertarians.

                  Note what’s also implied in this argument — consensual sex. If you have consensual sex you effectively consent to the possibility of getting pregnant. And because life begins at conception you have assumed the responsibility of carrying the pregnancy to term.

                  In other words, libertarians should be pro-life for consensual sexual activity and pro-choice for nonconsensual sexual activity.

                  1. The thoughtful pro-life response is that consent has been provided. Even with birth control, pregnancy is a foreseebale possibility. So if you believe life begins at conception then it’s not hard to see how there can be pro-life libertarians.

                    This is perhaps the most common argument. It does not hold water. The mother cannot grant the unborn person consent to use her body by engaging in consensual sex, because the unborn person does not yet exist when the “consent” was given.

                    Does not the father also “consent” to give the potential unborn person use of his body? Does the unborn person’s “right to life” include a right to compel the father to assist the mother in carrying the child to term?

                    Of course not. Neither parent has consented to anything other than what they did with each other.

                    1. I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. That’s like saying that if someone hands me a gun and says it might be loaded, so pull the trigger with it pointed at that bystander over there, that I only consented to pulling the trigger, not the possible outcome of murder.

                    2. No, you are the idiot here. What you just drew was a false equivalence.

                    3. Why, cause you say so? How is it false?

                      In both situation, there is an action with a possible consequence. In both, I would know what that possible consequence is, and in both I would be responsible for the results of my decision and action.

                    4. I’m sorry, but you’re an idiot. That’s like saying that if someone hands me a gun and says it might be loaded, so pull the trigger with it pointed at that bystander over there, that I only consented to pulling the trigger, not the possible outcome of murder.

                      I’m sorry that your analogy is nonsensical. How has your person who pulls the trigger consented to anything? No one is doing anything to that person.

                      Please make a point or go away.

                    5. Right, my point is nonsensical because you’re stuck on the wording. In my analogy, I consented to following directions. Or I could say, I chose to engage in the offered act.

                    6. Sorry, all I have to go on is the wording.

                      I’ll make your point for you: a person who pulls the trigger of a gun while pointing it at someone else is responsible for the injuries to the person he shoots. Likewise, a person who engages in consensual sex is responsible for conception, if it occurs. That person is then responsible for preserving the life of the unborn person.

                      You are begging the question. Being responsible for conception does not by itself impose further obligations on the people responsible for conception. What we’re arguing about here is what gets you from conception to a “right to life.” Please try to keep up.

                    7. Of course not. Neither parent has consented to anything other than what they did with each other.

                      They have opened consent to anyone who might be born. It’s similar to lost dog rewards. Fido runs away and I post a sign that says “$500 reward for anyone who brings him home safely.” If I do so, even if I didn’t previously know the owner, I’m entitled to that $500. The difference here is that the promise to perform (bring the child to term) is granted to someone who does not yet exist.

                    8. They have opened consent to anyone who might be born. It’s similar to lost dog rewards. Fido runs away and I post a sign that says “$500 reward for anyone who brings him home safely.” If I do so, even if I didn’t previously know the owner, I’m entitled to that $500. The difference here is that the promise to perform (bring the child to term) is granted to someone who does not yet exist.

                      Engaging in consensual sex is not an offer to carry a child to term. It’s just engaging in consensual sex.

                      Plus, how can a woman consent to give up her right to exclude others from her body? It is her right to exclude others or it is not.

                    9. Engaging in consensual sex is not an offer to carry a child to term. It’s just engaging in consensual sex.

                      I admit the analogy is not perfect (that’s why it’s an analogy), but pregnancy is a foreseeable, if unlikely, consequence of sex. And assuming life begins at conception you’re basically saying “if I do X, I know Y might happen, and Y affects the rights of another human being, but I really don’t want to troubled with that so I’ll terminate my pregnancy and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that decision.” The same reasoning applies not just to sexual activity, but to IVF and thousands of other cases where you make a decision and it has consequences that affect other people. You can call it “consent,” an “offer,” an “obligation” or whatever, but it doesn’t change the underlying facts.

                    10. I apologize now, but I have to get back to work. Maybe we’ll take this up another day.

                  2. In other words, libertarians should be pro-life for consensual sexual activity and pro-choice for nonconsensual sexual activity.

                    That suggests you are discounting any human rights of the unborn, in which case you should be pro-choice across the board.

                    If, however, you believe the unborn is a human life and has rights, then you cannot punish it for the crimes of one or both of its parents. Pro-life across the board.

                    When did abortion debates get so complicated?

                    1. When did abortion debates get so complicated?

                      I’m not discounting anyone’s rights, I’m starting with two premises. One is that life begins at conception. The other is that I own/control my body. If someone hits me because I consent, that’s not assault or battery. If someone randomly punches me from behind it is. Same with sex/abortion. If you don’t consent to the sex, you can’t be said to effectively consent to bring the baby to term. Sucks for the baby/fetus, but it has no right to be there.

                    2. Sucks for the baby/fetus

                      Black or white makes things uncomplicated, that’s for sure.

                    3. If, however, you believe the unborn is a human life and has rights, then you cannot punish it for the crimes of one or both of its parents. Pro-life across the board.

                      It is not punishment, it is defense.

              3. You fucking socialist, I have to feed them and I can’t even send them to work down at the foundry?

            3. Compulsory childbirth?

              Look, we don’t support compulsory liver failure for alcoholics either, we just don’t support their right to murder a random person and steal their organs once their actions start to have consequences. Hell, even if they weren’t alcoholics and their liver failed because someone poisoned them, it doesn’t give them the right to harm a third party.

              If women find a way to stop being pregnant without killing the fetus they’re carrying (teleporting it into an artificial womb or something) then more power to them. However, if you assume the fetus gets human rights (at conception, or even at some later point like “quickening”), then restricting abortion is pretty easily justifiable. Note: justifiable doesn’t always equate to good policy — there’s a reason we don’t invade and liberate every country run by a deranged tyrant, even if it causes people to suffer.

            4. I’m a Libertarian, so I believe in freedom AND its concomitant responsibility. If you don’t want a baby, don’t fuck. However, if you don’t want a baby, but choose to fuck, then find implement some form of birth control other than abortion.

              I spent years working with parenting / pregnant inner-city teen moms and it is not a fallacy that there are woman whose sole form of birth control is abortion. I PERSONALLY know teens that have had five or more abortions.

              At that point even their friends are saying, “Girl, at least use a condom.” The response to that is often, “But Chad doesn’t like ’em.”

          3. Wow, John. I guess you won’t be winning any demographics study awards any time soon.

            Are you seriously arguing that the reduction in the upper middle class white female birth rate since 1950 is entirely due to abortions? And that birth control has nothing to do with it?

            Gosh, since I only have one kid, I wonder how many abortions my wife has gotten without my knowledge, all while pretending to be taking the pill.

            1. Fluffy is wussy name for a dude. Not like ‘Shyne.’

            2. Married couples always had access to birth control. Griswald dealt with the denial of birth control to the unmarried.

              And we were talking about teen pregnancy. And yes, the pill seems to have reduced upper class white breeding. But it seems to have done virtually nothing to prevent teen pregnancies among the poor.

              1. This is because it is unavailable, or not being used. I think drug patents have something to do with this.

                1. I think it has to do with the pill being unavailable except by prescription.

                  1. I think it has to do with the pill being unavailable except by prescription.

                    Any poor person can get the pill for free (unless they are male).

              2. You said nothing about teen pregnancy in your 11:13 post. You said that contraception did nothing to reduce unwanted pregnancy.

                It might shock you to know this, but there are women who aren’t teenagers who occasionally want to not be pregnant.

                It might further shock you to know that many of those women use birth control.

          4. +1

          5. Do you know how many miscarriages occur every year? My daughter has had several in the last 10 years. If abortion became illegal, the state would need to be authorized to make sure every miscarriage was not purposely induced. This would, of necessity, require additional taxes and further state intrusion of an extremely personal nature. “Reason” indeed.

            1. If abortion became illegal, the state would need to be authorized to make sure every miscarriage was not purposely induced.

              Absurd. Simply denying a license to dispose of human tissue to abortionists would effectively shut down the abortion industry without ever bothering with women.

              Not to strain your deep thinking skills, or anything. “Reason indeed”?

        2. Oh boy! Abortion abortion abortion abortion abortion! Abortion!

          Everybody knows what everybody thinks already.

      2. even most catholics who object to abortion dont really have a problem with birth control

        but the issue is a good amount of christians, catholic and otherwise, think sexual relationshiops outside of wedlock are inpropper, so re teaching kids they are caught between the rock and hard place of either promoting birth control use, which is arguably pushing for increased sexual relationships, or not pushing their use and abortions likely occur more often

        1. But study after study says that sex ed and free access to birth control does nothing to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Further, If what you were saying were true, the highest rates of teen pregnancy would be among religious white children deprived of access to contraception. But instead the highest rates are among poor black kids who generally go to schools where contraception is encouraged and available.

          1. There are a number of things to consider here. First, it would seem to suggest that wealth is a deciding factor in terms of unwanted pregnancies.

            However, another thing to consider is that most black families are socially conservative, and thus opposed to abortion. So, it wouldn’t really matter if they were being given condoms or not. Another thing to think about is whether or not they use the contraceptives.

            1. Black people have the most abortions in this country by far.

              1. Then, that is their business. Here is where we must disagree.

                1. “Nationally, while black women are one and a half times more likely than white women to become pregnant, the CDC says black women are three times more likely to get an abortion.”

                  http://www.newsbusters.org/blo…..lack-women

                  1. New Rule: A link to either Newsbusters, Media Matters, or any “media watch dog” groups automatically disqualifies any who cite them.

                    1. But they are citing the CDC and an ABC news report. I am not quoting them for substance. I am just quoting them quoting the CDC.

                    2. OK, thanks.

                    3. Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups. In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was.

                      The comparison with whites and other minorities is striking. Whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions. Non-black minorities had 7 percent of live births and 5 percent of abortions. If the aborted children had been born for either group, the percentage increase in the number of children born to these groups would have been less than that for blacks: 16 and 32 percent, respectively.

                      Data from 1973 on indicate that black women’s share of abortions has consistently been at least twice their share of live births.

                      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html

                      That blacks have a higher rate of abortion is hardly a secret. Why you and fluffy are surprised by it is beyond me.

                    4. Actually, I do appreciate the links, but that Fox story data is seriously flawed.

                      The best statistic that could be used would be to measure the actual percentage rate of abortions per 1000 women of fertile age, with that number further broken down into 3 to 5 year age group buckets. Black fertility has been higher for long enough now, and black life expectancy has been lower for long enough now, that the black female population skews younger than the white female population.

                      The “percent of live births” numbers would, in particular, be skewed by a younger population average among blacks than among whites.

                      I think the number is different enough that it’s likely blacks would have a higher rate even after you controlled for age, but failing to control for age is exactly the statistical approach someone who wanted to make a deceptive “Abortion is anti-black genocide!” case would take.

                    5. You lost me. Why would blacks being younger mother’s skew the demographic? It seems to me that since younger mothers are less likely to have a miscarriage, black mothers, since they are on average younger, should have a higher not lower percentage of successful pregnancies (i.e. live births).

                    6. Fuck you, you shit-eating censor.

                    7. That was at the “Newsbusters be damned guy”

              2. Yes. 40% of all abortions are black.

          2. So what? You have to use the birth control for it to work. And that is the choice of an individual. Not a matter for public policy. Maybe some pregnancies are being improperly defined as unwanted.

            1. Whether or not a pregnancy is unwanted has nothing to do with whether contraception is used. It has to do with the intentions of the actors. Most, when having sex, aren’t intending a child. They just want to get their rocks off.

              Also, I find the argument that having sex constitutes an ‘implicit agreement’. An implicit agreement is just another way of saying an imaginary agreement. Only explicit agreements constitute a binding agreement.

              1. “Most, when having sex, aren’t intending a child. They just want to get their rocks off.”

                Cite or STFU.

                1. Common sense.

                  1. Personal experience does not equal evidence.

        2. Not this Presbyterian. I can’t wait until my girlfriend’s divorce is official because I’m going to fuck her brains out.

      3. I’m a pro-life anarcho-capitalist. There are thousands like me whom, based purely on science and philosophical principal, believe that life begins at conception. For those who care:
        a. we are not trying to lock up pregnant women or interfere with their freedom
        b. we abhor statism and dont see the statist shenanigans of either the prolife or prochoice sides as the anwer
        c. If you actually spoke to us for a minute and LISTENED, you’d learn that we are not mindless troglodytes.

        We’re catholic, baptist, anglican, atheist and hindu. We’re founders and influencers of the libertarian movement, and that is not going to go away.

        1. Interesting. You are aware that neither Rothbard nor Rand had any issues with abortion? Most libertarians up until recently seemed pro-choice.

          How do you plan on enforcing the abortion ban without coercion? Without interference in the market? Simply put, the woman is sovereign. The woman’s rights take precedence.

          1. how to you enforce any law without coersion? unless you are an anarchist, that is not a valid argument.

          2. I take exception to this:
            >Simply put, the woman is sovereign. The woman’s rights take precedence.

            One person is never sovereign over another. That is called slavery. However that does not mean the state or any state should step in in the unique guardianship of women-fetus. More precisely, short of shackles and chains there is no way for anyone to prevent abortions. The only reason for legislative threats from either the prolife or prochoice lobbies is to activate their voting blocks. If the problem went away, so would the consistent votes, and neither side will let that happen.

            1. Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, said that a fetus has all the rights of a person…and no more. That comes back to the woman; by banning abortion, you make her a slave. You compel her to carry a child she does not want; THAT is slavery.

              1. A good point, Tristan. I responded to it below, but I will copy here:

                When someone tresspasses inadvertently on your property the civil response is not to blow them to pieces but to evict them. As the age of fetal viability decreases, one would hope that a woman would consider evicting it rather than slicing it to pieces. I believe that she has the right to her own body. Morally she does not have the right to slice up another’s

                1. I think that the controversy of abortions would largely go away if there was free discussion void of threats of statist coercion from either side, along with adoptive services and single mother support from the prolife people.

                  Most woman find abortion to be a tragic event. We can do a lot to alleviate that pain without jailing them.

                  1. only hear from the women who find it a tragic event.

                    1. Exactly! What about those who think they made the right decision.

                      Another thing that isn’t brought up: What about the child who has to live with parents who didn’t want him or her in the first place? Parents who were forced to have their kid won’t do nearly as well as those who wanted their kid.

                    2. must be female too.

                    3. Yeah, that mediocre life is way worse than being killed. No way that kid with shitty parents will ever become 18 and can get away from them forever and find other people to be around for human companionship.

                    4. That life, sometimes, can be miserable or even abusive. There is also the possibility that the parents may get sick of their kid and kick them out. Or worse.

                    5. Parents who were forced to have their kid won’t do nearly as well as those who wanted their kid.

                      Cite or STFU.

                    6. You: you’ve not spoken to any women who have had an abortion. clearly.

                    7. Perhaps both of you are committing the Black Swan fallacy.

                      None of us have spoken to EVERY woman who had an abortion, so it is impossible to make a definitive statement one way or another. All one can say is that the one you talked to regretted it or was happy about it.

                    8. pebbles, I know of plenty and I’m female. You know very little on the subject.

              2. “THAT is slavery.”

                Don’t want to be a slave? Then don’t get on the slaves ship.

          3. Slightly OT…but have any of you read the comic Transmetropolitan? It takes place in a somewhat dystopic world at some point in the future where politics are even more corrupt than they are now and the U.S. sort of still exists (Yeah Right). I remember a panel early the series showing angry protestors screaming “Birthers” or something at a mother of 8+ kids because her desire to have more kids impacts the available resources, traffic conditions, stress on public works, etc. It was basically an interesting reversal on what we see from conservative protestors today. Although I think a person should be able to shoot out as many babies as she is able to care for, could this be one of the practical future arguments for abortion?

            Back on topic, not being religious or one who enjoys life very much, I don’t really care where life begins. Frankly, if the little brat’s neurons are not firing, the fetus could be considered a tumor for all I care. Plus… I can’t imagine how much worse traffic will get with even a modest increase in the population. Regardless, a line has to be drawn somewhere but I would rather women make that decision than a panel of religion inspired men.

            1. Thumbs up for truth!

              1. Actually, that was all unsupported opinion and speculation, but thumbs up for cheerleading!

        2. well thats like me… im a pro life, in favor of gay marriage (ideally just privatize marriage contracts) pro drug legalization, anti censorship, anti prohibition, pro legalization of prostituion…

          if you subscribe to libertarian thought, in complete absence of religion, i dotn see how anyone being intellectually honest can’t realzie how abortion is the issue that it is. It pits the most fundimental natural rights against one another, life and liberty. It is quite possible to come to the conslusion that abortion is killing without anyr religious motivation.

          1. What of the woman’s right? Does she not have control over her own body? How does a ban on abortion even differ from a prohibition on alcohol? You seem to be a minarchist; that’s fine, plenty of room for these types. But, you underestimate how large the state would have to be to enforce the ban on abortions.

            1. tristan,

              I acknolege the restirction on a woman’s liberty. This is why this issue is so contentious. Protecting a person’s liberty to their body is why i am against prohibition of alcohol drugs etc. In this case, this is an easy call because there is no other’s right sinvolved except the woman herself.

              The problem with abortion is if you have the premice that a fetus is indeed alive* then it is not just the woman’s liberty at stake. You now have a rights conflict. By prohibiting me from kiling you, my liberty is being restricted. Obviosuly this restriction is legitimate however, because your life trumps my liberty to do so in this rights conflict. So int he case where it comes down to this, the restriction on the woman’s liberty is justified becasue the life of another individual trumps that. This is why it hink for the purpose of societal debate we really need to get out of this its a religuos value thing. We need to be having an argument over what exactly constitutes life.

              *Just for clarification, personally i am not sure about making the claim of whether a human is alive at conception, but I am willing to make the claim that it is alive at least as early as viability.

              1. The is no rights conflict. A woman is capable of exercising liberty, and does not directly depend on someone else for sustenance. A fetus, while it is in the womb, is essentially just living off the woman. It cannot survive independently from her.

                Also, by banning abortion, won’t this just drive the practice underground? You would be having the same police raids that we have in this drug war and in Prohibition. It will cause more suffering by those who are already born!

                1. so a newborn child who is dependent on others for its very existance does not have a right to its life? And I don’t buy that the ability to exersize liberty is the qualification of life. If a person is in a coma would it be justified for someone to kill them? Or once again what about a 2 month year old who bearly realizes his feet are part of him?

                  1. That is different, the child is no longer hooked up to an umbilical cord. It’s when it is in the womb that the woman will get an abortion. I agree, that no one should have to get one if they don’t want to do, and adoption services are fine.

                    Here is where I stand; abortions for those that want them. Adoption for those that want it. Everybody wins.

                    1. but you are making the argument that dependence on another human being in of itself is the principle that cedes onces right to life.

                      So lets assume that there is no place to put a child up for adoption… is it ok for a woman to abandon her infant in the woods and be let to die if she does not wish to care for it?

                2. and i also understand the enforcment problems, but enforcment problems, though adding to the dmanges of drug prohibition, are not the philisophical motivator for ending prohibition. I want to end prohibition because in of itself is a violation of liberty. Furthemore, we do not nulify a law because it is not 100 percent enforceable.

              2. *Just for clarification, personally i am not sure about making the claim of whether a human is alive at conception, but I am willing to make the claim that it is alive at least as early as viability.

                Are zygotes alive?

            2. Not really. There is precious little secular legal tradition that considered a fetus the same as a person. To do so is ahistorical and impractical. Do we mourn for the 40% of pregnancies that are terminated spontaneously? Is this a great natural disaster–perhaps the greatest you can possibly fathom? Or is the historical standard, viability, a more useful definition of autonomous life? The idea that life begins at conception is an entirely religious one, it’s based on the idea that humans have supernatural souls.

              This is not an easy question, or it would have been solved. But what we know is that banning abortions means only women with means have access to abortion, and those without will in some numbers resort to dangerous “back alley” practices that will kill a certain number of women. Abortion is a fact of life, the question is whether it’s safe for everyone.

              1. Do we mourn for the 40% of pregnancies that are terminated spontaneously?

                You’ve never heard of someone mourning over a miscarriage? I have family and friends who still mourn those loses years after the event.

                Besides, you’re confusing someone dying from accident or disease with someone dying due to another’s conscious choice. Those aren’t even apples and oranges, they’re apples and zebras.

                IMO, once a fetus is viable to survive outside the womb with whatever technological support is needed (similar to an adult on life support), that fetus’ right to life trumps the mother’s right to control her body, with the caveat that she should be able to have the fetus removed and put in an incubator if she chooses. If an incubator is not available, for whatever reason, then abortion is justified as the lessor evil.

                Again, just IMO.

                1. I think what this discussion reveals is that abortion is a moral matter, which belongs in the private sphere, not the public sphere.

                  It not something the State should either subsidize or prohibit. If it has any place, it is to prevent other people from interfering with the woman’s choice one way or another.

              2. Thank you, Tony! On other issues we might not always agree, but on this issue we are perfectly sympatico! That is exactly my position.

              3. “The idea that life begins at conception is an entirely religious one, it’s based on the idea that humans have supernatural souls.”

                Cite, plz.

            3. “What of the woman’s right? Does she not have control over her own body?”

              If she can’t keep herself from fucking, then I am going to say no, she doesn’t have control over her body.

          2. When someone tresspasses inadvertently on your property the civil response is not to blow them to pieces but to evict them. As the age of fetal viability decreases, one would hope that a woman would consider evicting it rather than slicing it to pieces. I believe that she has the right to her own body. Morally she does not have the right to slice up another’s

            1. Again, you avoid the issue. The woman is the one who will end up enslaved in this situation.

              1. Then don’t get pregnant.

                It is, in fact, a “choice’ in most cases. If it’s not (e.g. rape), OK, different deal.

                Otherwise, the kid didn’t choose to be conceived, you chose to conceive it. So you get to take care of it till it can take care of itself (age 18 in the USofA).

                Choose wisely…

                1. or at least you chose to take the risk that you may get pregnant.

                  1. fortunetally we have technolgy in the modern world to greatly self regulate this risk.

                2. Most pregnancies are inadvertent. They were not intended. Yet, you wish to ban them from an abortion. I agree that an abortion is best as a last resort, but that last resort is still there.

                  1. Most pregnancies are inadvertent. They were not intended.

                    Citation please.

                    1. Yes, most of the pregnancies I know about were certainly planned.

                  2. “Most pregnancies are inadvertent. They were not intended. Yet, you wish to ban them from an abortion. I agree that an abortion is best as a last resort, but that last resort is still there.”

                    Now you avoid the issue. The intention to avoid pregnancy does not absolve someone of the responsibility that flows from the choices they make any more than my intention to safely drive home while intoxicated absolves me of the responsibility for killing a pedestrian. Would you not allow them to enslave me in a jail?

                  3. “Most pregnancies are inadvertent.”

                    [citation needed]

              2. If we can ‘coerce’ a women to carry full term, should it also be illegal for her to smoke, drink alcohol, or do drugs during the pregnancy? How about illegal to not take neo-natal vitamins or eat in a’ healthy’ fashion or get enough exercise?

                All the above effect the health of the baby, and thus it’s rights are violated. How about making sure the mother doesn’t engage in motorcycle riding or any other risky or stressful behavior that can damage the baby?

                Where is the line drawn?

                1. +1 for the win!

                2. well this is why abortion is such a difficult issue. But we already do this with the rasing of children. The law forces parents to not neglect tehir children. Now you may not agree that there should be a parental obligation for ones child, but this would not be unprecidented.

                  Arguably the one natural obligation that an individual has to another human being is the parent-child relationship, preciely because it was due to the parent’s action that teh child exists. I know philisophically that is up for debate, but there is an argument there.

                  1. I suppose the pro-life libertarian might analogize abortion to a parent leaving a child to die in the forest, or something like that. While that may be a reprehensible thing for a parent to do, it does not violate the child’s rights.

                    Unless abortion constitutes aggressing against the unborn person, the only way to get to a “right to life” for unborn persons is to introduce a positive right, something libertarians oppose.

                3. Whatever, Alask-Can. Don’t you know only men get to own their bodies? Women can shut up and do as they’re told.

                  In fact, some bitch should be making me a grilled cheese right now.

                  1. And it’s not like our shirts are going to iron themselves.

                  2. Suggie baby, I can’t find the speculum to stick the grilled cheese up your ass. Are you sucking in it again!

                  3. That Dos Equis guy’s got nothin’ on you, Sug.

                4. Who coerced her to get pregnant? In my world, actions have consequences. One possible consequence of sex is pregnancy, and all of the responsibilities that come along with that. I’m not going to attempt to argue that my belief is absolute, and trumps others, but some of you are completely ignoring normal consequences and personal responsibility completely.

                  Also, to call pregnancy slavery, is pretty seriously skewing the word. A pregnant woman can continue with their life, nearly unaltered for almost the entirety of the pregnancy, and it was a condition that they chose to potentially put themselves into.

                  1. Who has the right to coerce her to carry the child?

                    Consider this; perhaps she doesn’t want the child. Perhaps she doesn’t think she would be a good mother. Perhaps she can’t afford the child. Putting it up for adoption would be taking responsibility, but so would having an abortion.

                    1. Hardly, abortion is ending, or shirking responsibility, not being responsible.

                      I’m not talking about coercing her to carry the child. I’m talking about not aiding or condoning the act of ending a human life. She chose to take the chance of becoming pregnant, in my mind, accepting the responsibility of not only carrying the child to birth, but raising the child to independence. If at some point she decides she can’t handle that responsibility, there are others that will step in and take that responsibility over for her. Ending the life of the unborn person is not being responsible.

                    2. Okay, by your logic, then adoption is shirking the responsibility. If we only look at it from the perspective of responsibility, then there is no difference.

                    3. Clearly, we’re not. and there is a large difference between someone agreeing to take your responsibility to the new life you created, and choosing to end that life for your own convenience.

                    4. Here’s the problem:

                      If the failure to care for that life is the same as taking that life, then every last collectivist absurdity about how you need to be enslaved to feed starving Africans is true. Every last one.

                      I should throw your ass on a collective farm THIS FUCKING MINUTE so we can start the extra grain shipments to Zimbabwe.

                      “This is different! The mother is responsible for the child, and I’m not responsible for Africans!” Says who? If you can arbitrarily hand out moral obligations, so can the hippies who want to give your tax money away.

                    5. Yeah, um…did I do anything whatsoever to create life in Zimbabwe? Why yes I did, cause apparently, I’m god! Who knew? Thank you Fluffy for waking me up. For that, I will grant you pime space in the sofa pits of the Ettenmoors.

        3. We are America! And so can you!

      4. This isn’t really true, you know.

        Focus on the Family, Democrats for Life, etc. – they’re all anti-contraception in addition to being anti-abortion.

        Rank and file abortion opponents tend to mirror the overall American view of contraception, but the activist base in the Pro-Life movement, pretty much across all denominations, is anti-contraception. And this has resulted in their organizations being anti-contraception on paper, although most of their membership probably doesn’t take that position.

        1. Again, absolutely correct.

        2. Focus on the Family, Democrats for Life, etc. – they’re all anti-contraception in addition to being anti-abortion.

          Link? Citation?

        3. But they are not our teachers, Grasshopper.

      5. Only hard core Catholics object to birth control.

        And that is based on the teachings of the Church, not of Scripture.

        1. QFMFT

          1. Where would the Catholic Church get the idea that it could declare birth control a sin?

            According to Christian theology, God decides what is and is not sin. The Scriptures, in fact, state explicitly that no man can change the terms of divine covenants (either the covenant of Sinai or the covenant of the sons of Noah.)

            In fact, the Watch Tower Society (infamously known for declaring blood transfusions a sin) points out that the idea of the sinfullness of contraception was based solely on human wisdom, not divine wisdom.

      6. Perhaps only Catholics have an official problem with BC, but that isn’t the problem. “Conservatives” have a difficult time imagining that kids are going to fuck regardless of how many times their church leaders tell them abstinence is the only way to live lest you risk your soul burning forever in damnation. Then they push it on school districts to NOT teach about safe sex and BC methods.

        Then they wonder why there are so many teen moms. Then blame it all on immigrants.

        1. “Conservatives” have a difficult time imagining that kids are going to fuck regardless of how many times their church leaders tell them abstinence is the only way to live lest you risk your soul burning forever in damnation.

          Would not the optimal solution be to encourage kids to get married as soon as possible?

          And do not tell me that teenagers are too young to be married. According to the Bible, a king who is described as having turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him”, had at least one son by the time of his seventeenth birthday. (2 Kings 22:1, 2 Kings 23:25, 2 Kings 23:31)

          1. Uh. The Bible? Really?

            When you can drum up support from something other than a book that only so many people can agree on we can have a conversation.

            Would you listen to me if I came up to you and said, “in the Qur’an . . .”

            Not likely.

            1. Uh. The Bible? Really?

              When you can drum up support from something other than a book that only so many people can agree on we can have a conversation.

              Would you listen to me if I came up to you and said, “in the Qur’an . . .”

              Not likely.

              The Jewish Scripture pointed out that a king who was known for his piety had his first child before his seventeenth birthday.

              And the Bible is definitely relevant as to what Christians believe.

    2. It doesn’t matter if those protesters were pro-life or members of the Vlad Tepes Appreciation Society trying to get this guy to vote for a national impaler’s day, the MSM would not report it as anything other than violent “teabaggers” out to terrorize a poor congressman just trying to do his job. Your rant against prolifers, in this case doing something stupid I agree, misses the point.

      1. “See, I released it in Transylvania so vampires would come and visit me and I could get them to bite into my neck and then I could become immortal! Why the hell do you think I made myself look so sexy on the cover?!?”

        1. Is that a Tommy Wiseau quote?

          1. Little Brittle, Art. Little Brittle.

              1. Look, my shniggys, I had a strizzoke in my brizzain, okay? You know what I’m sayin’? So I can’t move all good. Thanks for bringing that up, thank you very much!

                1. …it smells like lotion and doo-doo in here…

      2. If we ever do win the battle to have a National Impaler’s Day, I call dibs on Pelosi.

        1. I will never stop vomiting.

          1. Not THAT kind of impaling!

            It says a lot about you that when I said that you immediately thought about giving Pelosi a ride on your disco stick.

            1. It was your disco stick that got the gorge to rise, but her gray crevasse of horrors brought it all up.

              1. I am not stupid enough to click that link.

                Mouseover makes it appear to be harmless enough, but that could be a trick. It is possible that you somehow procured a photo of Ms. Pelosi’s lady parts, perhaps by planting a hidden camera in your own bedroom.

                I am not going to risk permanent blindness and/or insanity by clicking on that link.

                1. C’mon. You know you wanna. Click it. click it.

                  1. As much as it pains me, I gotta agree with Fluffy on this one. No way I am gonna click that link.

                    1. Sissies!

              2. I had a friend who spent years in Antartica. The first year he was there, two idiots decided to ski off-path. Both went into a deep crevasse. One guy ended up wedged in head first and died immediatly. The other feet first. It took him a really long time to die. The people in your linked pic are morons.

    3. And, oh yeah, the loss of our freedom. That’s nothing new; we lost that when the PATRIOT act was signed. Of course, none of them give a shit about that.

      The health care legislation is going to affect every American. I’m no fan of the PATRIOT act, but how many people do you know that were directly affected by that?

      1. I’ve been affected by it; every time I am searched by airport and museum security. The prisoners of Gitmo who were denied their right-to-jury. Yeah, plenty were affected.

        1. Not all people choose or are able to travel by plane, or even step foot in an airport. You choose to go to the museum; no one is forcing you to visit.

          The Patriot Act, IMHO, is bad law that should not have been enacted, and I don’t see The Anointed One in any hurry to rescind it by executive order.
          Gitmo detainees are enemy combatants and should be subject to tribunal; if found innocent, then deport them to their country of origin.

  3. Yawn. Call me when they put him *in* the coffin.

    1. Call me when they leave a burning coffin on his lawn.

    2. Personally, I’d have left a toilet on his lawn. Coffins aren’t cheap!

      1. Good thing they’re astroturf.

        1. Now that would be threatening. Replace a congressman’s entire lawn with astroturf under cover of night.

  4. Of course super douchnozzel Ezra Klein is free to blood libel anyone who objects to Obamacare

    “Few of us are on a mountain with this stuff, of course. Many condemned me for saying that Joe Lieberman was willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands to settle an old grudge with liberals when he threatened to blow up the bill if the Medicare buy-in wasn’t removed. I’ll stand by the math of the comment, and the analysis of Lieberman’s motivations, but I certainly wish I had phrased it somewhat more delicately. The word “cause” was ill-advised:”

    http://legalinsurrection.blogs…..-mass.html

  5. Might as well repost this from yesterday’s dead thread:
    Luring congressmen into compromising positions it how we are going to effect change. It should be pretty easy considering how they just can’t help themselves.

    1. That is what Jay Edgar Hoover did. He just had FBI agents follow Congress Critters around Washington. Then when they were out with their hooker, mistress or in some cases boy friend, the FBI agent would pull them over to the side of the road and quietly explain to them that the Director would advise them to be more discreet in the future. No threats, no direct intimidation, just some quiet advice from the Director and of course the knowledge that J Edgar now knows what they are doing and could chose to release it to the public at any time.

      1. J. Edgar Hoover was a real creep. Ha ha.

        1. He was. But Congress kind of deserved him.

  6. I guess I would ask: Can the Republic be saved? If the answer is “no” and we are in fact past the point of no return, don’t we want the empire to crumble quickly, like taking a band-aid off? We don’t want to drag it out. Let’s get it over with and move on to the next phase of history. Even if it is “Bartertown.”

    1. The best thing to “save the Republic” would be to demand an end to the wars; shutdown overseas bases; and strip down the military to a purely defensive capability. The Warfare state, as it stands, is the problem.

      1. I’m frankly more concerned about the forceful taking of the last of my personal liberty by our elected fucksticks. And I think that is the main factor tearing up the Republic.

        Yeah, end the Warrrrz….and leave me the mother FUCK alone while you’re at it, Uncle Sam and Nanny Neighbor.

      2. Yeah, I have about 25% concern about the warfare state, and 75% domestic issues. Singed iraqis just don’t affect me as much as the hole burned in my wallet and those two guys sitting in the sedan parked in the alley across the way 24/7.

        1. In a rare moment of agreement with Justin Raimondo, I think you have screwed up priorities. Wars tend to INCREASE rights-violations at home.

          1. I don’t really see much of a direct connection between compulsory health insurance, and the war. Or banning incandescent light bulbs, and the war. Or zoning laws, and the war. Yes, the war on terror shit bothers me, but most domestic rights violations have very little to do with foreign warfare. Government loves its power over the U.S. more than power over the rest of the world.

            1. The government likes power in general. But, the biggest obstacle to shrinking the state in domestic areas is the military. As long as the government needs to be big in foreign affairs, it will be big in domestic affairs.

              1. I’m getting close to considering including you in troll territory.

                Your premise here is that if we didn’t have a large, and powerful military, we’d have a weaker, and more liberty orientated federal government? Really?

                1. No, just that it would be easier to fight for liberty at home if we weren’t interfering in other countries affairs.

                  1. Ok, that may be a fair point. However, I’d argue that in this period of time, the difference is negligible. We are under no threat of violence from out military, and are free to act in order to work towards reform. So, how is it harder while we are at war, or have a large and potent military?

              2. Careful. If they no longer have anyone to fuck with over there, they will be left with just us peons at home to fuck with and no one else. And if they can’t tax us like they do (a domestic issue) they can’t fight overseas.

              3. got two words for ya, British Empire.

                Brits haven’t been big on the world stage since WW2, but they are just loving the crap out of smothering their own citizens.

            2. How is compulsory health insurance any different than the draft?

              1. END THE HEALTH INSURANCE DRAFT.

      3. That would be doubly good because Europe would have to choose between bulking up its military (and either tottering closer to bankruptcy or cutting social programs) or else taking the risks associated with low national defense. Granted, it could well be that going less defended is the better option, at least in the short run.

      4. Dude, this is a libertarian blog, not a conservative one. Most, but not all, commenters here would agree with you about the war thing.

    2. Who run Bartertown, sage?

      1. *whispering*

        …master blaster…

        1. Embargo…. lifted!

      2. Say it louder…

      3. I wish there really were a wheel that politicians would have to face when busting a deal.

        1. Captain Walker…..MISSUS WALKER!!….

      4. “It’s like the Thunderdome in here, except two men enter, no man leaves. Rated R. Starring Mel Gibson and Master Blaster.”

    3. Obama is doing more damage to this country than Osama could even hope to do.

      Under his watch the downfall will happen faster.

      1. *rolls eyes* I think Bush has done more harm than Obama ever will.

        1. SRSLY? He’s just into his second year. Give him a chance.

          1. If I were a gambling man, I’d put money on it. Fortunately for me, I am not much for games of chance.

            1. Obama has continued and perpetuated the wars you hate, while accelerating drastically our march towards socialism, and financial ruin. Did we find a socialist in our midst?

              1. Okay, so he did fucking screw up. Good thing I didn’t bet anything. The march towards socialism? Hardly. A socialist? I am not.

                Socialism is this: government ownership and operation of the means of production. By that standard, we are not moving towards socialism. We are moving towards the welfare state, but that is not the exact same thing. Right now, what we have is a state that bails out the rich for their screw ups and subsidizes whole sectors of the economy. That’s just typical bullshit.

                1. Right, so government controlling compensation, or having ownership in previously non-government corporations isn’t anything? There isn’t anything typical about it. It’s bullshit absolutely, and must be fought for what it is, a march towards socialism. But yes, in our case, it’s a form of cooperative socialism between government and big business.

                2. Really?

                  GM, Health Care, Banking, Student Loans, Mortgages and more….

                  Corporatism, it would appear, is the preferred means to Socialism.

                  You also forgot dictation of personal behavior when these means of control are implemented.

                  If we are not marching towards Socialism, then I submit you are a blind man.

                3. By that standard, the countries that have been labeled as socialist are not socialist. The fact is that de facto control over some industries is socialism.

                  1. I define government spending over 50% of GDP as communism. By that definition, France is communist, Britain recently became communist, and the US is about 5% away from it.

  7. I would also like to report violent, threatening statements. Hopefully, the media will investigate and villify the responsible party: James Moran, D-Va.

    Recently, this man dumped a law on me that would penalize me unless I buy specific products.

    Further, he’s taking money from me to pay for someone else’s abortion. If I don’t pay that money, he’ll send dudes to my house with guns to take it from me. The worst part is that I didn’t even knock that chick up!

    Please write hystical, poorly sourced reports about this violence in your newspaper.

    thank you.

    1. The only good Democrat is an aborted Democrat.

      Abortion…it’s for Democrats.

      1. I knew it. You’re a Republican. Get your ass back to Hot Air.

        1. Can’t someone be an anti-Democrat?

          On an unrelated note, I really hope that one day our elections system is updated to let us vote against candidates instead of just voting for one. If nothing else, it might humble the guy who wins with 3% of the net vote.

        2. I’m very anti-Democrat.

          I’m anti-Republican as well, but I recognize they are the slightly lesser evil.

    2. “Recently, this man dumped a law on me that would penalize me unless I buy specific products.”

      End Obama’s Health Insurance Draft!!!

  8. We also prayed for the handicapped and the elderly who will be turned away as they face the death panels created by this bill.

    I would think I would rather have the death panel ‘turn me away’ when facing them than stamp my record ‘APPROVED!’

  9. If you are the kind of political news consumer that believes in hearing both sides of a story

    That’s what MSNBC is for.

    1. +bwaaaaaahahahaha!

  10. I’m quite unnerved by the government and the media’s attempt to try to spin opposition into some sort of potential or actual violence. Not very far from there to locking people up or otherwise restricting their speech rights. ‘Cause, you know, they’re all terrorists.

    Something instructive in all of this has been missed, too. Don’t cross the line when you know there’s a line that you’re crossing. They know this law and all of this socialist b.s. is extremely unpopular with the right, moderates, and independents. That’s a big chunk of the country.

    1. The know it is unpopular. And they know they are going to lose any argument on substance. So the strategy is to de- legitimize any opposition. This is how the Democrats keep the black vote. Black people as a group are very socially conservative. Also many of them support things like school vouchers. And it would be in black people’s interest to swing their vote to both sides once in a while so no one takes them for granted. But the Democrats have convinced black people that to be a Republican is to be a racist. So, blacks vote Democrat in huge numbers even though it is really against their interests. Same thing is going on here. They know people hate the bill. But they are trying to make people think the choice is vote Democrat or support violent extremists.

      1. What extremists? A huge chunk of the country is very pissed off. They are going to see violence from all sorts of people.

        It won’t even get to the point of fining people; it will be crazy long before then.

        The American revolution happened with less than 33% of the country supporting it. Another third was loyalist and another third didn’t care.

        1. Dubious statistics.

          1. Didn’t you quote Rothbard up above? You should look into what he wrote about the American Revolution. He was very negative about the treatment of the Tories.

            1. I’ll be sure to read it.

              1. Specifically, as noted, it’s in Conceived in Liberty, volume 4, chapter 76.

          2. Not dubious at all. Go read about the American Revolution.

    2. I’m quite unnerved by the government and the media’s attempt to try to spin opposition into some sort of potential or actual violence.

      I wonder where the fuck they get that idea from?

      SugarFree|3.25.10 @ 9:52AM|#
      My objection is that they let him [Joe Boyle] out of his cage at all.

      Of course, maybe if he’s in the tough of a school he’ll get stabbed.

      John|3.25.10 @ 9:54AM|#
      We can always hope.

      https://reason.com/blog/2010/03…..nt_1627017

      1. Bullshit. I don’t want joe stabbed for his beliefs. I want him stabbed for his behavior. And because he’s short.

      2. See the violence inherent in the system!

      3. I just want him stabbed.

        1. …by a black kid…for his beliefs.

      4. They created the crises, and initiated the violence. It is either us or them.

  11. “Expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing until November.”

    Good.

  12. someone faxed an image of a noose to House Minority Whip James Clyburn on Monday

    OMFG!!!

    1. Oh, Christ. It wasn’t a noose, it was an old Twizzler that was stuck to my ass. I was trying to fax him a picture of said ass.

      1. First they came for the fax machines, and I did nothing.

  13. I’m not laughing: six months of this shit will brainwash a lot of peeps. None who read here, but we all know nitwits that will fall for it.

    1. Thank you Howard Dean.

  14. It would be shame if a fire started in the Riechsta-ah-um, Capitol. A damn shame.

  15. As long as Reason is being Fair & Balanced today, why don’t we look at both sides of the story regarding Ann Coulter’s Canadian appearance, too?

    1. Looks like Rashomon to me.

      1. Is this that remake they’ve been talking about? I knew it would suck!

        1. LOL, yup. Hollywood waters everything down.

    2. That guy almost makes me wish I believed in a god. I don’t want to be on that asshole’s team for anything.

      1. Just like every Catholic is not a rapist of 200 deaf children, not every atheist understands liberty.

        1. Is that one of RC’z laws? No matter what your beliefs, some raging asshole holds (really) similar ones.

          1. I AM THE LAW!

              1. The Law of Asshole Ubiquity

                “There’s always an asshole who agrees with you somewhere.”

                1. Luckily for me, they’re all gathered here in one convenient spot.

          2. Not one of the Iron Laws, Art-P.

            I’ll put it on the candidate list.

          3. It’s like an ergodic theorem for assholery.

    3. The organizers of the event at a university are not Coulter’s people. They are the organizers of the event. The people who invited her. People from the university.

      What a stunning display of lack of reading comprehension on your part and the idiot who wrote that blog post.

      1. Read the rest of the blog. It’s enough to make you want to get to a camp meetin’ and then burn yourself some biology textbooks.

  16. Given the number of self-inflicted “hate” crimes, I will be interested to find out how many of these incidents originated outside of the Democratic Party and its affiliates.

    I’m going to be generous, and estimate that only 40% of these incidents are not “self-inflicted.”

    1. It doesn’t matter. Republicans and their teabagging henchmen have created a climate of hate and should be executed.

      1. Keith? Keith? Is that you?

  17. I think Bush has done more harm than Obama ever will.

    Speaking as a rabid longterm BushHater, I can only say, “Good luck with that.”

  18. Expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing until November.

    FTFY

  19. When Pelosi gets pantsed, it’s war.

  20. The marching orders have been sent. I woke up to Ann Curry interviewing McCain on the Today Show, wherein she was vaporizing about violence in these times from HCR opponents. It was also the top story on news radio as I drove to work. Ugh…

    1. I’m looking forward to the Summer of Hate.

  21. I have to say, that I applaud Gateway Pundit and those with him that protested my idiot representative with their prayer vigil. I’m surprised not at all, that Russ lied to the news. He’s been lying to me for quite some time now. It’s pretty much his natural state. Though I’m starting to think he may actually believe his fantasy world is real.

    1. Yeah, his two young boys deserve to have scary people with coffins in front of their house.

      How fucking cruel can you assholes be? Go get some mental health help, loons!

      1. If it keeps his spawn from ever following in Dad’s footsteps, it’s worth it.

      2. Yeah, scary people…hah. Did you see any pictures of those scary people? A group of well dressed middle Americans standing on the sidewalk outside his house with cups, a couple flashlights, and a US flag draped coffin, quietly talking and praying. Yeah, I’d be running for the hills.

        Realistically though, after ignoring the constitution, and the fairly clear will of the people, history, precedent, and normal procedure, to take my money to give little in return but a part in funding the murder of babies, he really should expect some backlash. And if the worst of it is a prayer vigil on the sidewalk in front of his house, he should consider himself damn lucky.

    2. Although I wouldn’t phrase it the same way as Al, I kind of agree that taking it to his home (and therefore his family) was excessive. I can handle vigorous criticism at work, but if you show up at my front door to continue it, be prepared to be treated harshly.

      1. They’re legislation is certainly going to be impacting me and my family, while it’s not going to impact him and his family, since congress is exempt. I absolutely agree that anything violent, at this stage is significantly counter-productive, and something that I still don’t see a point in our future where I would condone it, but this was a fracking prayer vigil. I wish I had known about it, I might have gone.

        1. “They’re legislation is certainly going to be impacting me and my family, while it’s not going to impact him and his family, since congress is exempt”

          As are the staffers that wrote the bill.

  22. Supposedly, the FBI is investigating. I really, really hope, for all kinds of reasons, that they have some success.

    One of those reasons is that I have every confidence that a significant fraction will reveal themselves to have been committed by lib-symp provocateurs.

    1. Holder will suppress the evidence. Think “New Black Panthers”.

  23. FOX News is reporting that the office of Eric Cantor was shot up on Monday. Yahoo violence: it’s not just for teabaggers anymore.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..overnight/

    1. He does not know when the office was shot, if the office was targeted, nor will the police confirm. the police say they are investigating an incidence of vandalism. Heck, he can’t even say if anyone was at the office when it was shot at, wouldn’t you ask your staff? Something smells rotten in Denmark.

      1. Sure. He could have done it himself. Nobody has any evidence of anything. Yet this hasn’t stopped the mostly lefty press from accusing Republicans for every reported act of vandalism.

  24. The Democrats just passed a law decreeing that if I do not engage in a specific transaction of INTRA-state commerce, I will be fined.

    If I do not pay the fine, these politicians servants, men with guns, will come to break down my door and arrest me.

    If I resist arrest, believing it to be nothing more than kidnapping under the color of law, I shall be shot and probably killed.

    Yet these same politicians are now complaining about being THREATENED (not by me) over their PROMISE to kill ME for having the temerity to disagree with them.

    The really sad part is they are more disturbed by a broken window than what they see when they look out of it.

    1. Well put. That hackneyed old Declaration of Independence lists some grievances that might be construed to justify resistance to tyranny. Are we there yet? Not quite. But will we have the courage when that time comes?

    2. End the health insurance draft now!

  25. FOX News is reporting that the office of Eric Cantor was shot up on Monday.

    I blame me, for mentioning Democrats’ fondness for shooting up Republicans’ offices. On Wednesday.

    What did I know, and when did I know it? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if my rhetoric and their actions are deeply related.

    1. You’re fanning the flames of hate, Mr. Cent.

  26. What a whiny little pussy brat. That’s nothing more than what any college football coach has put up with on a daily basis in the fall.

  27. the flying bricks are funny but it doesn’t help the cause.
    I’m getting sick of reading editorials in the newspaper that say people who oppose the health care bill are racist. they will label us all kinds of things just as the republicans did the same to us about terrorism and the wars during the Bush administration. that is why I hope that people don’t think that voting just any republican into office is going to solve things. we need to elect true constitutionalist republicans or libertarians, but just trusting someone because they say they want elected, are against the health care bill, and have an R next to their name doesn’t mean they are really against big government and won’t pull the same shit when they get the majority.
    the best opposition to the bill isn’t throwing bricks and using ad hominem attacks against your representatives, the best opposition would be to get your state representatives to pass health care nullification laws. there is also the option of using nonviolent civil disobedience by not buying health insurance (or at least find a why to not report it to the government) and refuse to pay the fine.

    1. correction: or at least find a why WAY to not report it to the government

    2. they will label us all kinds of things just as the republicans did the same to us about terrorism and the wars during the Bush administration.

      Which Republican officials labeled you as anti-Jewish or Nazi for opposing the War on Sand Nazi Terror?

    3. Those are all fine and well for the short term, but I will submit a better solution.

      STOP VOTING IN REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS OF ANY KIND! Neither give a shit about the American people, only their own power.

  28. I know one thing for certain – none of the shut-ins posting on this site are going to do jack shit. It’s like distilled impotent rage in html.

  29. The argument for abortion, for me, has absolutely nothing to do with belief structures (I.e., who gives a shit when you feel “Life begins”?). There is no hard scientific evidence to show when that happens, and what scientific evidence does exist might scew towards the idea that life does not begin until said fetus has popped and is, you know, actually living and breathing on its own.

    Either way, the crux of the matter for me is human behavior. Women will continue to get pregnant (that’s a biological imperative). Sometimes they will get pregnant even when they don’t really want to (shit happens, even if one does use BC). Because women will sometimes get pregnant without intention, some will choose to get an abortion. AND IT WILL ALWAYS BE THAT WAY.

    So what we’re looking at women are going to get abortions. We can either:

    1) Allow them to get abortions done safely.

    2) Force them in to back alleys with hangars.

    That choice is easy for me. Though on a moral level I might not like the idea of abortions, my sensibilities, or yours, HAS NO FUCKING PLACE IN A POLITICAL ARENA. Forcing women to back alleys is even more barbaric than the abortions you so decry.

    But you wouldn’t care about that.

    “It’s for the children.”

    1. Hillary Clinton (and others) have said countless times that we should keep abortion safe, legal and rare. If it is just a medical procedure, then what’s up with the keeping it rare part? No one ever says that appendectomies should be safe, legal and rare.

      1. Yet, strangely, appendectomies are not very common. Probably because there’s not an activity enjoyed by basically most of the population that will cause your appendix to swell up and explode, showering your intestines with gooey, chunky goodness. If getting laid caused appendicitis in 5% of participants, appendectomies would be a hell of a lot more common.

        Not that this has anything to with the abortion debate, so carry on.

  30. BORING, I thought this post would at least have a few people making fun of the Gawker commenters “I defrieded 20 people on Facebook because they’re a bunch of white supremacists”. Just for the record I’m for abortion as long as the mother eats the fetus when shes done getting it sucked/scrapped out.

  31. Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames.

    As for the window. This was staged by one of Cantor’s gun buddy, good try at being a victim but I don’t buy it, next.

    1. Go back to DailyKossak-land.

      Why don’t you move to your socialist paradise of choice instead of cramming it down others’ throats by force?

      You are scum, and a coward, and a hypocrite.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.