A.M. Links: U.S. Considers Military Options for Syria, Feds Reach Foreclosure Fraud Settlement With Banks, 10 States Leave Children Behind

• "The Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities" in response to Syria. 

• Meanwhile: Liberated Libya slipping into chaos. 
• Pentagon to allow more women in more combat roles. 
• The DNC convention will have million-dollar tickets. 
• Obama Administration reaches a settlement with banks engaged in foreclosure fraud. 
• Ten states leave children behind. 

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Halftime in America: Remy Chrysler Ad Parody"

Comments

[RoboCain]

""It is a sad, sad day in the life of our territory when gossip and slander wash away reason and truth and fairness and commonsense," de Jongh said. "It is a sad day in our nation when reckless allegations can be published without substance or verification as part of the smearing of our President or his Attorney General. This kind of broad brush stereotyping was shameful in the days of Jim Crow, and it is more so today."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02.....y-scandal/

[o3]

the RW conspiracy nutz know not shame

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Using the race card as a first defense...

Stay classy, USVI

[JW]

This is why it's better in the Bahamas.

[bisexual]

looking for the bilover?===Datebi*cO'm=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

[WTF]

Obama Administration reaches a settlement with banks engaged in foreclosure fraud.

Why would you include a morning link that is subscription only?

[shrike]

$26 billion settlement with the five major private mortgage banks for "robo-signing" - a misdemeanor with a few thousand cases of significant actual damages.

So much for that "crony capitalism" charge.

The banks really want this settlement though. So why complain?

[John]

They can find that amount of money under the cushions of their couches. They were facing hundreds of billions of dollars in liability. And they walked away with a slap on the wrist, that will probably be paid for in bailout money anyway. They paid good money for Obama.

[Fluffy]

Meh, they should have litigated at least one of the robosigning cases before pussying out.

I still say the vast - vast - majority of the issues raised under the robosigning scandal are not material to any foreclosure proceeding in the first place, and mortgagors would have no standing to litigate them anyway.

[John]

True. But if it were any other industry other than the banking industry, people they desperately need money from, there would have been a legal jihad over it rather than a quick settlement. Imagine if oil companies were found to be signing fraudulent mineral leases. Something tells me they would have litigated.

[Maxxx]

Would you say the same thing if the UAW, Catholic Church or solar cell manufacturers had engaged in systematic perjury?

The term organized criminal activity is justified in the Robo-Signing affair and letting them off with a slap in the wrist is further evidence of the lawless nature of the Obama administration.

[shrike]

The vast majority of robo-sigs were on legit foreclosures. Actual damages were nowhere near $26 billion.

However, banks are despised in the real world for this mortgage crisis so they might really get out cheap.

[The Constitution]

"Actual damages were nowhere near $26 billion."

Citation?

[Pro Libertate]

John, I think you are dramatically overestimating the size and number of couches owned by banks.

[John]

Big denominations Pro. Big denominations.

[Pro Libertate]

Ah, the new neutronium quarter. Quarter of a trillion, that is.

[bosty]

So much for that "crony capitalism" charge.

The banks really want this settlement though. So why complain?

excellent doublethink comrade

[R C Dean]

$26 billion settlement with the five major private mortgage banks for "robo-signing" - a misdemeanor with a few thousand cases of significant actual damages.

Robosigning involves perjury and fraud, which are frequently felonies. The "actual damages" include clouded title for every property where robosigning was committed.

A justice system concerned with pursuing criminal activity regardless of the wealth or connections of the criminal would not be settling these cases with a smallish fine (in context).

Robosigning is part and parcel of a larger problem created by MERS, namely, that MERS actually caused the invalidation of the mortgage security interest, meaning that the foreclosure itself was illegal and invalid. The borrower still owed on the note, of course, but the lender (whoever that was after MERS botched things) would have to go to court and get a judgment against the borrower before they could foreclose.

[shrike]

Agree to all you say except the "perjury and fraud" part. Impersonating a notary public is a misdemeanor according to a source of mine. "Fraud" is debatable since the foreclosure process is in question and not the legitimate act of such.

Granted, actually correcting the massive paperwork problems makes the $26 billion look light.

[Lord Humungus]

hmm... who should I trust in this, an internet loon who is a well-known Buffet cocksucker, or an actual lawyer.

[rac3rx]

But...the cocksucker has "a source"!

[R C Dean]

Impersonating a notary public is a misdemeanor according to a source of mine.

That's not the perjury. Perjury is false swearing, and that's what robosigning was. These people were filing affidavits, under oath (which is what the notarization provided) that were fraudulent. Just because you also faked the notarization does not mean that the affidavit wasn't provided under oath.

The fraud follows from the perjury. If you file a false document in order to seize someone's house, you have committed fraud.

Actually, what you have identified is a new criminal offense, to add to the other two.

[shrike]

And this vaguely criminal "fraud" you note was outsourced to Lender Processing Services who executed the robo-sigs.

Are you suggesting mortgage department employees should be held criminally liable instead of this settlement?

[R C Dean]

I think we're getting into RICO territory, here, (or would be, if we had a functional justice system). The "criminal enterprise" would certainly encompass responsible mortgage department employees.

Hiring a firm that engages in criminal acts on your behalf certainly doesn't insulate you from responsibility. The people who should really be on the hook, at the bank level of this, are the higher-ups, and, of course, any mortgage dept. employees (and there are many, notwithstanding LPS's role) who actually signed false affidavits.

[Tonio]

Thank you, RC.

[Fluffy]

Actually, RC, it's largely the opposite.

The overwhelming majority of the documents in question were accurate, but procedurally flawed. If the facts of the attestation are true, but the notary didn't actually witness your signature but notarized a whole bunch of your documents later, I would argue that's not a material act of perjury and the banks should have litigated. Or litigated at least one.

It's like the claims that foreclosures were fraudulent because assignments were incorrectly notarized. That's silly, because the purpose of the notary stamp on the assignment is to protect the original mortgagee from someone walking down to county records and filing forged instruments assigning their mortgages out from under them. If the original mortgagee affirms their act of assignment, a flawed notary procedure while executing that assignment just isn't a material fraud. Put another way, the party with standing to contest an assignment document is the original mortgagee. I would have fought and litigated at least one of these, too.

The settlement here is just the banks doing the usual game theory bullshit of refusing to fight in court because the downside of losing is too high, so they figure they'll reach a settlement and move on.

[R C Dean]

The overwhelming majority of the documents in question were accurate, but procedurally flawed.

Not so fast. Depending on the state, MERS failed to actually take or transfer a lot of these mortgages under state law, simply because some states require "wet ink" on actual paper for transfers and assignments of mortgages, which MERS virtually never got.

Depending on the state, that means that the affidavits and whatnot that were filed were fundamentally inaccurate. MERS may have managed to disconnect the mortgage from the note, they may have managed to leave everything with the originator, but regardless, they created massive, fundamental issues of standing and enforceability that can't be solved with post-facto "oopsie" documents.

The assignment issue runs even deeper, though, because these mortgages were assigned (or not) to closed securitized pools. Failure to properly assign to those pools brings in securities and tax fraud issues. Those cases are still going forward, BTW.

The whole point of the real estate documentation process is to create a single, perfectly clear paper trail, where arguments of materiality and whatnot have no place. What the AGs are signing off on here is fundamentally at odds with that.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

So much for that "crony capitalism" charge.

Obama's been trying to keep the housing market bubblicious for the last two years and failed miserably. It has allowed the banks to keep from marking their assets to market, however.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Ten states leave children behind.

Kids come home, find states have packed up, house empty, a note left on the counter for the neighbor.

[Sparky]

I can't wait to see how much things change up here in MA now. I'm sure it will all be for the worse.

[Suki]

Sounds like a Fastball song.

[Brett L]

In the article, it says that 29 more are trying to leave their kids behind as well.

[RoboCain]

Haters Gonna Hate:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c.....r-gun-and/

[RoboCain]

"A former policewoman concocted a story that a colleague had raped her after her husband found out about their affair, a court has heard."

http://www.theage.com.au/victo.....1r5j8.html

[o3]

i dont see teh blacks involved?!

[Suki]

Needs more dog shooting.

[RoboCain]

I don't think those stories. There are way to many of them.

[RoboCain]

Uh, "too".

[robc]

Really? That is the correction you want to make?

[RoboCain]

Uh, "link those stories".

*throws keyboard out window*

[AuH20]

Single and LOVING IT! Or Occupy Valentine's Day

this year i bought two fantastic women (my oldest and best friend, and a new friend) vibrators and inga muscio's "cunt" for valentine's day so that we can all celebrate our gorgeous female friendships and revel in the power of ourselves. screw single's awareness day and bring on v-day (not valentine's day, the OTHER v).

I think that your friends assume you are hitting on them.

[AuH20]

Also, this is probably the saddest way to respond to being the only woman in your office not receiving flowers.

[RoboCain]

http://feministing.com/2012/02.....d-whiskey/

[AuH20]

I started to read this shit because of SF, you start to because of me, THE INFECTION SPREADS!

[SugarFree]

You should have known better than to share a toilet with patient zero.

[AuH20]

You told me that was just chunky milk!

[SugarFree]

And yet you still put it on your cereal.

[AuH20]

Well, who the fuck puts water on their cereal?

[Heroic Mulatto]

Well, who the fuck puts water on their cereal?

Po' folks.

[AuH20]

Exactly, HM! It is unbecoming of the monocled class!

[T]

Bourbon on corbflakes tastes pretty horrid, too, if you were thinking of trying it.

[Trespassers W]

Bourbon on cor[n]flakes

The Breakfast of Champions.

[rac3rx]

Why do these idiots have to now "occupy" every fucking thing? This is so played already.

[o3]

kinda like (something)gate

[RoboCain]

The world is their airplane toilet!

[sloopyinca]

Dare I say it...Occupygate?

[Sparky]

Occupymageddon!

[sloopyinca]

"In a world where occupying takes over..."

[RoboCain]

Getting jilted & crying rape doesn't fly

"Which begs a question: When did feminists start telling women they could have emotion-free sex like men, and live with themselves?"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/n.....Bx3QgQzyiI

http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....-1.1018760

[Cranberry]

Almost from the start.

Feminism is a lie built on a house of lies. It amazes me that something supposedly for women denies some the very aspects of the femininity it purports to promote and respect.

[AuH20]

Gender and femininity are just social constructs created by the patriarchy, dudebro!

[Eduard van Haalen]

Wait - men have emotion-free sex?

How does that work?

And what would be the point?

[db]

And feminists accuse men of wanting sexbots to avoid emotional entanglement. If men have emotionless sex, and many women seek out men for sex, aren't women really the ones seeking emotionless sex partners?

[Cranberry]

Yes, but you see, the objective is emotional conquest. A woman believes her vagina is The One special vagina that will save a man from his emotional wasteland and turn him into the well-behaved, emotive, and doting lover that will eventually earn her scorn and hatred because she killed the inner bad boy that so attracted her in the first place.

[Cranberry]

earn him her scorn and hatred

[o3]

And her uninteresting & *PREDICTABLE* man-without-balls will require viagra to keep boning Teh One Vigina...which he doesnt need when looking at hot women

[Brett L]

I get emotional every time. My emotions range from bliss to bitter disappointment and everywhere in between, depending on the partner and circumstances. Am I doing it wrong?

[Eduard van Haalen]

You shouldn't feel anything - you should just close your eyes and think of England, or Star Trek.

[RoboCain]

I think of Patrick Stewart. Now, some people might think that sounds kind of gay, but it's just thinking of England and Star Trek at the same time!

[Eduard van Haalen]

I thought he was Scottish, not English.

[Brett L]

You're thinking of Padraig Stuart.

[Sparky]

What would be even better, Patrick Steward reciting the Oxford English Dictionary on the bridge of the Enterprise.

[Sparky]

*Stewart

[Maxxx]

Feminism is a lie built on a house of lies. It amazes me that something supposedly for women denies some the very aspects of the femininity it purports to promote and respect.

It's amazing the way people have bought into the self loathing of the original butch lesbian feminists.

[Audrey the Liberal]

Feminism is a lie built on a house of lies. It amazes me that something supposedly for women denies some the very aspects of the femininity it purports to promote and respect.

Dear Cranberry, women are not cloned in factories you dumb ass. I thought as a libertarian you would understand that. I guess not.

[Audrey the Liberal]

Just because some women can't have emotion free sex doesn't mean all women can't. Believe or not, we are individuals too.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

Wait! I thought that was only during the 70s...did it change back again?

Damn. I'm always the last to hear.

// In all seriousness, I think RoboCain was poking fun at some of the more---well I was going to say hysterical, but that's probably a bad idea so lets go with---vocally extreme mouthpieces of neo-feminism.

[RoboCain]

Sentenced to Red Lobster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....62637.html

[AuH20]

Hey! They have good biscuits!

[Restoras]

Popeye's are better. Dammit, now I'm going to have to get Popeye's for lunch.

[RoboCain]

Jezebel wonders why young women are attractive:

http://jezebel.com/5881335/why.....legal-porn

[John]

Hugo Schwyzer is a professor of gender studies and history at Pasadena City College and a nationally-known speaker on sex, relationships, and masculinity.

That is straight out of the Onion.

[Cranberry]

Schwyzer is a complete mangina tool, raised by an unwed radical feminista mom who ingrained hatred of his own penis into him from an early age.

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Hey Cran, why don't you tell us what you really think about Schwyzer?

[Fluffy]

Let's not criticize that article too much - at least it's honest about its motives.

For some guys, it may be possible to masturbate regularly to images of 20-year-olds in high school cheerleader outfits without any loss of passion for their 30- or 40-something partner.

Here they are admitting that their real concern is not with protecting the young. Their real concern is that men might be less attracted to the old.

Because that's, like, not fair and stuff.

[John]

But I thought these women didn't want the male gaze? Aren't they happy their husbands love them for their minds?

[Joe M]

It's doublethink. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Bobarian]

damned if you married someone who reads jezebel...

[John]

And I guess too this is really about the fact that men are attracted to women's bodies and men are attracted to things like cash and power. So a man can get old and bald and still attract attractive women by having other things money can buy. A woman can't do that. And I am sure that fact drives these women nuts.

[Cranberry]

Youth = reproductive capacity. After about age 26 a woman's fertility declines more rapidly each year. Even if making babies is not on a man's conscious mind, his subconscious is seeking a fit, fertile environment for his seed.

The lament of older unwed or married but childless women who waited too long to get pregnant is growing louder and louder, and they think it's some joke played on them by the Patriarchy, to tell them to wait so long and put the career first.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/01/.....ocks-clang

[His Conscious]

his subconscious is seeking a fit, fertile environment for his seed.

What am I, chopped liver?

[Almanian]

Huh. I thought it was just because young, nubile wymyn with pert breasts and tight bodies are...y'know, HOT.

Learn something every day!

[Lord Humungus]

*ding* and the man wins a ceegar!

[Bill Clinton]

What a great and useful prize!

[Night Elf Mohawk]

Youth = reproductive capacity.

And firmness. And less ravaging by gravity.

[Great Band Name]

Ravaged by Gravity

[Red Rocks Rockin]

From your link:

"They put them out on a piece of paper on the desk right in front of me and I was like, whoa. It just seemed so fashionable to have kids in your 40s, these days," she says

Retarded SWPL bitch. The pre-Revolution French aristocracy was less self-absorbed.

[RoboCain]

SWPL?

[Cranberry]

Stuff White People Like.

See also: hipster, for the younger SWPL demo.

[rac3rx]

Feminists...just another advocacy group screwing over the people for whom they claim to be advocating...

[Cranberry]

It strengthens the case for a return to patriarchy sometimes. The pendulum must inevitably swing back.

Feminism, and all other Marxist -isms that politicize every issue from gender/race "social constructs" to the environment and climate change science are built to fail.

[JW]

Was there an audition period for this story, so they could find the dumbest 40-something woman possible?

Does she actually think that her fitness translates into the health of the ova she was born with? I won't go as far as to say that health doesn't affect fertility, but does she actually think that there is an egg factory in her somewhere?

[nicole]

A woman can't do that. And I am sure that fact drives these women nuts.

I am as big a Jezebel/Feministing hater as anyone here, and think 99.99% of their complaints are BS about how life just isn't fair. But comments like this (and I don't necessarily want to single you out, John) don't do a hell of a lot to make H&R friendly to women (and I don't mean that in any kind of Jezebellian sense).

Do I think "that fact drives these women nuts" in the sense that they wish they could magically wave a wand and change how the world works? Yes, probably. But you know what? It also drives me nuts, because it fucking sucks and it's fairly reasonable to be stressed out because some of us have a very limited-time window to make a bet on the right other person.

Am I on some crusade to change that? No, because that's how life fucking works, and we all have to just suck it up. But it would be nice if my own internet buddies weren't quite so eager to revel in something that's shitty and depressing even for people who aren't part of the post-feminist groupthink.

Obviously it is all too easy to write me off on this subject. Obviously it is an emotional one. But when Cranberry mentions things like "[t]he lament of older unwed or married but childless women who waited too long to get pregnant," as if they are the only ones being told to "put the career first," I get pretty annoyed. I don't blame the patriarchy; I blame a culture of general childishness.

[Citizen Nothing]

John is why no one takes libertarians seriously.

[Priestess]

I actually gloat a little. I had five children by the time I was 26 and got an incredible amount of flak from other women for it. I had correctly surmised that I could pursue a career well into my 70's but if I wanted children I had to get that done first. So here is a Nelson HA HA.

[Jerry]

Young women need to be attractive, because its all about species survival.

[sarcasmic]

Age isn't just a number; that confidence and wisdom takes time to emerge.

When a guy has his dick in his hand the last thing on his mind is whether or not the young buxom blonde has confidence and wisdom.

Sheesh. Hasn't that guy ever waxed his carrot?

[SugarFree]

Remember... this is the guy who has experienced erectile dysfunction since he was a teenager, dated numerous lesbians, still admits to being attracted to lesbians, and married a lesbian.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Experiences disbelief, googles, holy shit, it's all true...

[xenia onatopp]

I also experienced the disbelief, followed by the Googling, and yeah, that's just...wow. This represents a level of pussification I wouldn't have believed possible for a human male. It's not contagious or anything, is it? Because the future of the species is at risk here.

[AuH20]

When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross!

[Chief]

Callahan!

[Anacreon]

McGarnagle!

[Abdul]

You all missed the point. Hugo's wife caught him yankin' it to a "babysitter" video, and he managed to convince her that he was doing academic research. Hell, he may have parlayed his pr0n preferences into university-subsidized research.

Congrats, Hugo, you are living the dream!

[Citizen Nothing]

Hugo lives with his wife and daughter and their six rescue chinchillas in Los Angeles

Talk about livin' the dream!

[AuH20]

The comments, as always, are gold. Did you know that men who want to screw anyone under 18 are pedophiles (ignoring the centuries of history when you'd get married at 14 and pop out a kid by 16/17)?

[o3]

and die by 30

[Great Band Name]

That's a great goal! Good luck!

[AuH20]

From the comments:

I just think it's a simple case of men wanting to screw underage girls....they are little more than pedos in my opinion....they can use every excuse in the book but that's what they are. This is precisely why I refused the advances of older men when I was younger. I said one day, I am going to be their age and my contemporaries are going to go after young women too. I didn't want to add to the problem.

These types of men can't deal with fully formed women and haven't matured enough to appreciate them. Somehow, they think sleeping with a youngster will keep them young. Just like a tree has rings inside to indicate their age, such is the case with men. If you are old, that's what you are.....sleeping with a girl isn't going to change that fact, so deal with it.

It's sad really, because they are cheating themselves out of a lovely experience with women who actually can relate to them. Lastly, I agree 100% with the naivete angle. An inexperienced girl won't be able to tell how sexually inept and inadequate they are.

[SugarFree]

Shorter Jezebel commenter: "I am fat."

[Lord Humungus]

I lol'd.

[RoboCain]

LOL

[AuH20]

SF, that's every Jezebel comment.

[Loki]

Shorter Jezebel commenter: "I am fat."

...and old, and fugly, and no man will have sex with me.

[Sparky]

Because what I want is a woman yawning and asking if I'm done yet while I'm screwing her. Fucking old bag.

[Zeb]

Calling attraction to sexually developed teenagers pedophilia is ridiculous. While it may be inappropriate and creepy to act on it most cases in today's culture, there is nothing in the world more natural or normal than being attracted to young nubile women. If we let our animal natures run things more (not that I'm advocating that), I'd bet that most children woudl be born to women under 20 years old.

[Banjos]

Oh puhlease. When I was 16, boys my age were dipshits. This was true when I was in college, after college, and at age 29, it still remains to be true. The last time I was with a man my own age was highschool, once I hit college they were at minimum 5 years older than me. Sloopy is 12 years older than me and it is a match made in fucking heaven. I cannot for the life of me figure out why women would want to be with men their own age. Women mature faster than men, men are attracted to younger women, hence younger women and older men were meant to be together.

[Gus]

You got a newsletter I can subscribe to?

[Heroic Mulatto]

As I stated before, the existence and popularity of MILF porn invalidates his entire argument.

[RoboCain]

So does the female teacher having sex wit underage male student stories I see everyday.

[Zeb]

Yeah. I think the lesson to be taken form internet porn is that there are enough people into anything you can think of that someone can run a porn business based on it.

[sarcasmic]

Rule #34

[jacob]

Have you read the comment section? Hilarious!

[Audrey the Liberal]

Jezebel wonders why young women are attractive:

For the same reason fresh bread tastes better then stale bread.

[RoboCain]

"Victoria's Secret model gives up runway for religion"

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02.....hurch-pew/

[Brett L]

May she have many daughters.

[RoboCain]

Well, we haven't seen her husband...

[Brett L]

I was thinking of the PK effect more than outright attractiveness. How ugly can a girl who gets half of those genes be?

[yet another dave]

Yah and in a couple years she'll divorce her hubby and make a sex tape... Attention whores never change

[DesigNate]

Ugh. The comments to that article made me fucking cringe, and I'm a Christian.

I'm pretty sure God, at least the NT God, doesn't give a flying fuck what you do to make money.

[Priestess]

Castiel: I am utterly indifferent to human sexuality.

[KMA]

Wheh...I guess that means I CAN be a hitman without arousing God's wrath!!

Move over, Martin Blank. Got some contracts to fulfill.

[DesigNate]

I don't know if God would really care if you were a hitman as long as you repented. But the difference between that and walking around in lingerie and skimpy bathing suits is your job actually harms another human being and being half naked doesn't.

[RoboCain]

Christina Ricci is still hot:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....-Rico.html

[sarcasmic]

Christina aka The Forehead Ricci is still hot:

ftfy

[robc]

If you even notice her fivehead, you are doing to wrong.

[robc]

OTOH, I find the tats to be a turn-off.

[Ice Nine]

And besides, who doesn't have half a grocery bag lying around?

[Christina Ricci]

*rolls eyes*

My forehead is up here!

[bosty]

Shh! You're ruining the movie!

*goes back to watching Santa Claus Conquers the Martians on Ricci's forehead*

[sloopyinca]

I still don't get all the attraction to Vieques. Yeah, it's pretty nice, but why wouldn't someone go to Culebra if they wanted total seclusion?
And 'They strolled down Malecon, which is the main coastal street in Esperanza. People were super excited to see her there.'...There is only one coastal street in Esperanza. Hell, there are only about three streets, period. The town they speak of is a string of shitty little kioskos across the street from a sea wall and a 10 ft beach that reeks of brackish shit-water when the tide is out.

Jesus. And if they had to stay there, why not go Inn On The Blue. It's the only redeeming thing about that island other than the conch shells I used to steal from gold beach when the Navy wasn't bombing it.

/rant

[RoboCain]

Are you a travel agent?

[sloopyinca]

No, but I lived in Fajardo for 2 years and ran the kitchen in the best restaurant at the El Conquistador (before it got bought by Waldorf). I spent a lot of time on Vieques.

Of course, that was 14 years ago, so a few things may have changed.

[Citizen Nothing]

I absolutely love Vieques. (You do know the Navy stopped bombing a long time ago, right?)
Maybe the best good food/population ration in the world. And the beaches at the former navy base (now a conservation area, wow. My wife and I had a half-mile white powder beach entirely to ourselves. And the biolumenescent bay is cool too.
(One of the Vieques tourism sites links to an old article of mine on their home page -- they didn't pay me, of course.)

[Ska]

Sloopyincariduro?

[Gus]

"Of course, that was 14 years ago"

IOW when Banjos was 2?

[Gus]

"Of course, that was 14 years ago"

IOW when Banjos was 2?

[Fist of Etiquette]

President Obama is set to give 10 states a pass regarding an approaching deadline under the No Child Left Behind law, after the states struggled to meet the proficiency standards for reading and math.

When state officials can no longer be bothered to fudge the test results, you know our children are truly lost.

[Rich]

Meanwhile, 28 other states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, "have indicated their intent to seek flexibility," the official said.

We are so fucked.

[o3]

because NCLB is all that?

oh wait, never minds...teh unionz acourse. silly me

[Resto Druid FTW]

"Retarded you."

FIFY

[Old Soldier]

Still pushing for women in combat. Most of the women Soldiers and Marines I knew couldn't carry their gear into the barracks - much less keep up on a 30-mile forced march.

[AuH20]

But women can do any job as good as a man!

[KDN]

Push-ups on your knees are just as good!

[AuH20]

Every Summer Glau role agrees with you!

[Anacreon]

Wow, she has quite the forehead as well.

[John]

Women's bodies also don't stand up to ruck marches as well. It destroys their hip joints and lower back.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Shut up, sexist - Our Leaders know what they're doing, and they would never let politics influence military policy.

[Zeb]

Isn't every military policy influenced by politics? I'm pretty sure that's how it should be. The military is there to do what the civilian government wants it to do.

[Eduard van Haalen]

That means mutiny and coups are worse than bad civilian policies.

Gender-neutrality in the military is still wrong.

[SFC B]

I have a female Soldier in my organization who is, maybe 4'11 and 95 lbs. The ruck sack I train with weighs more than her. She is excellent in her MOS, and is in excellent physical condition, but her body is physiologically incapable of carrying her full battle rattle for an extended period of time.

[Double D]

OTOH, I served with a tiny Asian gal who carried her own load without complaint. And that's not because her male buddies didn't try to help her out. Was she hurting herself in ways that may impact her future career? Maybe, but I respect her for putting her money where her mouth was.

[Ice Nine]

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis said he doesn't see how the new policy helps the national security of the country.
"This...does (not) dismiss the differences physiologically between men and women in terms of cardiovascular fitness," Maginnis said.

Not hard to see why this guy never made Bird.

[Old Soldier]

Dipshit was probably worried about his unit's combat readiness instead of kissing political bums.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

Are you saying we should categorically eliminate women from combat roles simply because "most" of them can't do the job? What about the one's who can do the job? Don't they deserve to be treated as equals?

Besides there are plenty of men who wouldn't be able to keep up on a 30-mile forced march.

[Ice Nine]

...and who would wash out because of it.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

So the unfit women don't wash out? Only the unfit men wash out? I don't get it... Why should men automatically get a chance to prove their fitness, while women automatically get a desk job?

[An unnamed source]

So we waste limited training slots and funds on the off chance that a female is the 0.001% at the far right of the bell curve for females, that can handle the physical demands?

[annonymous commenter some guy]

So we waste limited training slots and funds on the off chance that a female is the 0.001% at the far right of the bell curve for females, that can handle the physical demands?

No. That's the whole point of testing. If you can't pass the entrance exam (carry 50 lbs for 20 miles, or something) you don't get a training slot.

Discrimination is ok in the private sector. It's not ok in Government.

[SFC B]

The point where you find out if someone can complete the end of cycle major training event isn't at the beginning of the cycle. Even a relativly fit 18 year old man would have a difficult time completing a ruck march in full gear on Day 1. There is a great deal of conditioning and acclimation required.

So, by the time you're determining that a hypothetical female infantryperson is able to meet the requirements you've already invested several weeks and that was time that wasn't available to someone else who could do it.

[DesigNate]

Right cause there's a waiting list to get into basic.

[An unnamed source]

Maybe not into basic any more. There was a line into basic back when I joined. But we aren't talking about basic. We are talking about specialized training.

[DesigNate]

SFC B was talking about investing time and training at the beginning (I assumed that would be basic) as though if we didn't waste it on testing a woman there would be an able bodied man not getting her spot.

I was just pointing out that there isn't a long line of men wanting to join that are getting shoved out by some woman who can't cut the mustard.

[R C Dean]

So the unfit women don't wash out?

You got it. There are different training and fitness standards for the wimminz. Because of equality.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

You got it. There are different training and fitness standards for the wimminz. Because of equality.

So the problem is really caused by the military treating women differently. If the military treated them the same as men, there wouldn't be an issue.

[R C Dean]

But they can't treat them the same. That would be discriminatory.

[An unnamed source]

There would be the issue of a very very very small percentage of women being able to meet the standards.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

A small percentage of what population? The only population that matters are the actual applicants, who are more fit than the general population of women.

[An unnamed source]

The strength bell curves for men and women do not match up. With very few rare exceptions, a weak man is still stronger than a strong woman. Just the facts.

And this even holds true for the women who enlist. Otherwise they would not have physical standards lower than the men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Physical_Fitness_Test
Look at pushups. The women get Max score at the number that men have to do to even pass.

[Old Soldier]

10 years of service between the Marines and Army. Never once did I meet an enlisted woman who wanted to be in the Infantry or Armor.

When I was in "non-combat" units, the women were more than happy to stay in the office or ride in a vehicle while we marched and did field exercises.

When it came time to deploy, several of the enlisted women immediately got pregnant.

The only woman who want this are ambitious career officers. They want a ticket-punch for General and don't care what effect it has on other women or the military in general.

[John]

^^This^^ And I knew several women who enlisted on the promise they would be doing desk jobs and ended up in MI or MP out in the field with infantry units doing things they were not prepared for and never signed up to do.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

Your anecdotes provide no excuse for categorical discrimination against all women by our federal government. Again, if a private security firm wants to preclude women from "combat" roles, that's fine because the private firm makes no pretense of serving everyone.

Besides, for everyone woman you know who was "more than happy to stay in the office or ride in a vehicle" you probably know 20 men who would also have that preference. Most of the soldiers I've met would rather sit in an office than march. It's only natural. The problem, as R C Dean said above is that women in the military have fewer responsibilities than their male counterparts.

The solution here is to treat women equally. Give them equal opportunity with equal responsibility.

[Old Soldier]

We got us an armchair general! Why wouldn't you want us to treat women equally? You won't have to hump a woman's gear up a mountain for her. You won't get killed for the sake of political correctness. You get to sit by your computer all smug.

[annonymous commenter some guy]

You won't have to hump a woman's gear up a mountain for her. You won't get killed for the sake of political correctness.

You haven't been paying attention, apparently. I'm advocating a policy in which the people (male or female) who get the job are the ones who can do the job. Under this policy the only women in the job are the one's who won't need to be treated differently. I understand women in the military are currently protected by political correctness. I'm advocating a policy that ends that while treating women and men equally on the individual level.

Do you disagree with this policy on principle, or do you disagree with it simply because you don't think it can be implemented properly by the people currently in power?

[Old Soldier]

I don't believe that could possibly be implemented by the people in power - now or ever.

You are advocating testing all women in the military for the strength and endurance to keep up with the Infantry. The 99% who fail will be labeled failures in their service-record-books and sent off to work in an office or kitchen. That will fly?

[annonymous commenter some guy]

Treat them equally and they will know the risks when they enter. It won't fly in the current PC-centered environment, but it is the right thing to do.

My principles don't change with the subject at hand. The government should treat people like individuals, no matter the circumstances. I understand this is sub-optimal for the military, but I really don't want a government that discriminates against groups of people. That behavior has cost our society a lot over the past century. If you continue to allow it in the military, how do you expect to extricate it from the rest of government?

[Loki]

I understand women in the military are currently protected by political correctness. I'm advocating a policy that ends that while treating women and men equally on the individual level.

Good luck with that noise. The feminists will never let go of that because while they'll never admit it, they don't really want "equality", they want special treatment.

When my wife was in AFROTC in college, the female requirements were a joke. A man had to be able perform a fireman's carry of at least 160 lbs, while she only had to do 90 (though she could do 120). The whole purpose of the requirement, BTW, is so that if someone is injured and needs to be carried to a medic in a combat situation any 1 of your squadmates should be able to do it. If your a 160 lb male and your squadmate's a female who can only lift 90 lbs you're screwed.

...do you disagree with it simply because you don't think it can be implemented properly by the people currently in power?

Speaking for myself I don't disagree with it in principle. In fact I agree that women, especially in combat roles, should be able to meet the same performance requirements as men. I just don't think anyone, regardless of who's in power, can get that policy implemented over the hysterical squawking from the feminist left.

[Bobarian]

The real outcome is when too many women wash out, the political solution is to lower the standard.

We can't allow the Army to 'other' the female population with their macro-aggressions

[An unnamed source]

Make all physical training standards the same for men and women, raising them to the male level, and then we might talk. Starting in basic females have lower standards and the used to even have "cheaters" on the confidence course obstacles.

[Old Soldier]

1 woman in 100 would pass. Our military doesn't have the guts to kick that many women out.

The inevitable result of that policy would be much lower standards for everyone.

[DesigNate]

You can't possibly back up that number.

[An unnamed source]

Basic biology backs it up.

[DesigNate]

I'm not saying it would be 50 out of 100 or even 25 out of 100. But it's gonna be more than 1.

[Old Soldier]

"Are you saying we should categorically eliminate women from combat roles simply because "most" of them can't do the job?"

Yes I am.

[Priestess]

I agree with you. There should be ONE minimum standard, if you pass you pass regardless of genitalia. If you fail, you wash out. Never happen because of political correctness though. I prided myself on passing the minimum PT standards for men, but what was a marginal male performance garnered me Outstandings as a female. It was fucked up operationally speaking.

[o3]

"The changes would formally allow women to be assigned to a battalion and serve in jobs such as medics, intelligence, police or communications officers."
http://www.stripes.com/news/pe.....n-1.168074
_

try facts instead of radio entertainment.

[Old Soldier]

Ever been an Infantry or Armor battalion? I've been in both - in combat with the Infantry battalion as a radio operator (a job open to women in non-combat units).

When the battalion marched, I marched with them with all my personal gear, weapons, etc..., and 40 pounds worth of radio and batteries.

We lucked out and rode into Kuwait during the Gulf War. The 7th Marines did night marches into Kuwait - almost 100 miles over 3 days carrying everything.

[o3]

and what's that got to do w medics & battalion staff?

[RoboCain]

*literally facepalms*

[Old Soldier]

He's joking, right?

[RoboCain]

No, based on his other commentz, he is probably that stupid.

[o3]

im an army vet & ive NEVER seen or heard of medics nor BN staff roadmarching 100 miles. in air/land/sea doctrine (modern warfare), troop movements like that are all mechanized & motorized.

[o4]

no no no o3, teh gays & womens will DESTROY the military...plus JOOS!

[o5]

und teh blacks

[Old Soldier]

Bullshit to every word of that post.

In a Marine or Army Light Infantry or Airborne Battalion, everyone marches. I've even been on long Regimental marches led by the Regimental CO and XO that included the entire HQ Company.

Task Force Grizzly did a foot-mobile infiltration into Kuwait prior to the main ground assault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.....ar_Culture

Light Infantry units are conducting foot-patrols in the mountains of Afghanistan right now. I'll bet every dollar that Corpsmen / Medics, Radio Operators, Intel, Ops, and other "staff" personnel are out there.

[xenia onatopp]

For a fact; infantry's infantry in the field. My son's original MOS was CBRN (he's moving to counterintelligence now), but he spent two deployments in Helmand province on foot patrol. And really, why not? What the fuck else is needed out there? Not much. It's physically demanding even for him, a 22 year old man who has only once had a PFT score below 300; the notion that more than a very small percentage of women could actually qualify for this is ludicrous.

[T]

Yup. Especially the Airborne. Everybody jumps, and everybody marches. Shit, we were Armor and they made us do the ruck marches. For time, even.

[Ice Nine]

That list is like one of those "circle the item that doesn't belong" test questions.

[T]

Medics? Srsly?

I wanna see the all-female stretcher bearer team at EFMB. That's gonna be fucking comical.

[Ice Nine]

You passed the test.

[T]

Fun old army story: I was once strapped to stretcher while they turned it on the long edge and angled it through a doorway. Some genius had set up the x-ray machine in a room with shitty access. I was the first non-ambulatory patient and they had to to figure out how to get me in there to get an x-ray. Took 6 guys, 3 on either side of the door.

[Ice Nine]

That would have been really fun with, say, a femur fracture.

[T]

Yeah, if my injuries had been more serious I'd have probably been pissed. As it was, I thought it was a classic Army clusterfuck.

[Abdul]

Or priapism

[db]

"And Nurse, keep an eye on that priapism!"

"Oh, I will, Doctor."

[Red Rocks Rockin]

In basic, the female flights typically would win "Honor Flight"--the one that had the fewest demerits on dorm cleanliness, uniform sharpness, personal locker configuration, etc.

I didn't have the heart to point out that all it did was prove that women were the best housekeepers.

[rac3rx]

I don't have a problem with it, as long as there is only ONE high level of PT standards and you either qualify or you don't. If you don't, you're out. I'm guessing there are a lot of people who wouldn't qualify.

[Audrey the Liberal]

I don't have a problem with it, as long as there is only ONE high level of PT standards and you either qualify or you don't. If you don't, you're out. I'm guessing there are a lot of people who wouldn't qualify.

Petty much this.

[Audrey the Liberal]

My feelings about women in combat are that there will probably always be less women qualifying for it then men, due to physiological differences, but that for the occasional woman who dose qualify, I don't see why she can't be allowed in a combat role.

[Rich]

the $1 million "Presidential" level, which includes a "premier uptown hotel room" and "concierge services," as well as the $500,000 "Gold Rush" package.

It's got "gold" and "Rush". Sounds like a trap!

[Old Soldier]

Since they are "selling" these packages to avoid campaign contribution caps, I assume they are subject to state sales taxes and aren't tax deductible.

[sarcasmic]

Does the "Gold Rush" package include a glory hole?

[o3]

is steve smith invited?

[Jerry]

It's an expensive shower.

[Almanian]

But is it a golden shower?

[Popular Girls]

"Ew!"
"Seriously?"
"That's gross."

[Almanian]

*throws sandwich away*

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Is OWS going to protest the 1% in attendance at the DNC?

[SEIC]

No.

[John]

Remember. No matter what the DNC tells you, there is no sex in the Champagne room.

[db]

Who else reads "concierge services" in this context as "discreet pimping?"

[EDG reppin' LBC]

I just assumed that as well.

[Moar Climate Conspiracy's !1!!]

Ice caps not shrinking as much as once thought, new data show

Mountain glaciers and ice caps around the globe collectively lost 148 billion tons of ice a year, according to new satellite measurements.

"The good news here is that they are not losing mass as quickly as we thought," says Ian Howat, a glacier and ice-sheet specialist at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center in Columbus, Ohio. "The bad news is that while we're not losing mass from ice caps and glaciers as quickly, we're still not gaining it anywhere."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir.....-data-show
_
but but but money! group think! emails!

[Restoras]

Don't forget the power to lord over billions while basking in 20,000sqft second homes, private jets, and gas guzzling limousine caravans.

[RoboCain]

"Last week, the Obama Administration launched the Equal Pay App Challenge. We're inviting software developers to help women ensure that they're being paid fairly -- which in turn will help restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....58106.html

[DJF]

So when do I get millions of dollars for writing two books about myself? I want my fair shot, fair share and reward for playing by the rules for writing about myself.

[robc]

Ive never know a woman in the IT field that wasnt already making more than the equivalent man.

[Jack the Reaper]

I recently ran some interviews for a C++ position that I had open. Got few responses for the position but two women did stand out as possibilities.

They both left crying in shame from my office when they couldn't answer simple basic questions.

Crying...I waited until they were gone then laughed out loud.

[SFC B]

I'm looking at my 2012 Military Pay scale and I'm just not seeing the "Male" pay chart. I need to know how much more I'm making.

[Double D]

NO SHIT! Lower standards, more "personal time", same fucking pay!

[Double D]

And significantly less ground deployments.

[Loki]

Sounds like you're the chumps for being born with a penis...

[DesigNate]

You know what I'd like to know? Which is it: Do corporations only care about the bottom dollar, thus hiring illegals who take our jobs for less pay? Or do men actually make more for the same job? Cause if it's the first, then wouldn't corporations be hiring all of these women who supposedly will work for less than male counterparts?

[Cranberry]

I hope the NCLB exemptions are the start of recognizing that not all students can be educated. I'm afraid my optimism in this vein is too great.

[DJF]

Do you mean that we don't live in Lake Wobegon.

However I do disagree somewhat, all kids can be educated, just not to the same levels and some levels are pretty low.

[Cranberry]

You clarified my point - not all kids can be educated to the same high levels. At some point there must be a drop off in the school population simply because some students have wrung would they could from the cloth.

But now profs and education loan-makers are advocating higher ed for all, a universally public, free, open-access college. Because more education means more intelligence...

Really it should come down to those with greater intelligence should have access to increased education. I almost wouldn't mind partially subsidizing the education of a poor but bright student who would become the next great engineer or doctor, but I am grated on by the requirement to subsidize the glorified daycare of my neighbors pot-head kids.*

*and I'm OK with smoking pot, but they're doing it while wasting money by not getting the education I, and you, and everyone else is paying for.

[DJF]

Two other factors is

Not everyone learns the same way, some love academic type training, some work for example much better in a apprentice type learning environment.

Also some people might get tired of the school environment for a while so stop learning at 16 but might pick up interest later and work well coming back into a school environment at 26.

However our government school system and the government funded education establishment seem to love the one size fits all method where they try to stuff Algebra 2 into a bored 16 year old

[Sparky]

Also some people might get tired of the school environment for a while so stop learning at 16 but might pick up interest later and work well coming back into a school environment at 26.

That was me.

try to stuff Algebra 2 into a bored 16 year old

That's what my daughter is going through right now.

When I was in high school 20 years ago everyone got pretty much the same classes as a freshman then went on to stuff geared towards them the rest of the way. Trade classes, college prep, etc were choices you could make. Now they're forcing every kid into the same mold for all four years.

[Cranberry]

Also some people might get tired of the school environment for a while so stop learning at 16 but might pick up interest later and work well coming back into a school environment at 26.

Me, too.

[SFC B]

Same here.

[Bones]

I can't fix a car to save my life. But I know guys in high school that had no business being there, not because they were stupid but because they were wasting everyone's fucking time taking biology and English Lit when they could have been getting a jump on us college bound people by working for a living fixing cars. I'm smart at what I know and they're smart at what they know. They'll pay me for things that I learned in college and I'll pay them for things they already knew before they eeked out their diploma. Why can't people see that value and be OK with it?

[Fist of Etiquette]

On Thursday, the Pentagon is recommending to Congress that women be allowed to serve in more jobs closer to the front lines.

Generals know BDU's on the other side of the FOB need ironing, too.

[DJF]

Guys on the front lines need sandwiches too.

[Bee Tagger]

The DNC convention will have million-dollar tickets.

Yeah, and a bushel of cabbage in the Weimar Republic cost 750,000 marks, what's your point?

[o3]

what's yours? M2 is stable

[AlanG & BennyB]

M2... How Quaint!

[o5]

what's ur measurment? Mpaul?

[Bee Tagger]

Ten states leave children behind.

If they don't have the 10 states each scream "Kevin!" while aboard a plane, I'm not seeing this in the theaters.

[Fist of Etiquette]

[Insert Kirk Cameron reference here]

[Ice Nine]

Finally, we're safe from the scourge of beach frisbees! But when oh when are they gonna outlaw that dangerous sunbathing?

[RoboCain]

"The updated rules now prohibit "any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll" any object other than a beach ball or volleyball "upon or over any beach" between Memorial Day and Labor Day."

Doesn't that also ban hacky sack?

[Night Elf Mohawk]

"Hey, toss me a Dr Pepper/bottle of sun screen/towel/the car keys."

Idiots.

[RoboCain]

Apparently, you can't roll a cooler either.

[Rich]

Officials warned that any activities that could potentially harm "any person or property on or near the beach" should not be allowed

Sand on the beach ball could get in your eyes. A volleyball could be spiked into your groin. "Could potentially harm." Gold, Jerry.

[robc]

While I can hypothetically see it, does anyone really ever get hurt by a frisbee, or just annoyed?

[considers college intramural ultimate injuries...but that is different!!!]

[EDG reppin' LBC]

Thinly veiled attempt to keep the heremanos and hermanas off the beaches, as our Latino amigos like to kick el futbol en la playa.

[insensitive monster]

Then they should ban swimming in denim jeans and wife beaters.

[o3]

just like BBall hoops are disappeared eh?

[rather]

Navy going green

[db]

What, more nukes?

[John]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healt.....ol-mandate

Apparently things are not going well with the White House contraception mandate. Dems are breaking ranks and demanding it end. Of course, he might want to call Koman and ask how feminist take people who break ranks.

[The Other Kevin]

I don't know wtf Obama was thinking about this, or the Keystone pipeline. Sure, he is giving something to his base. But they'd vote for him anyway. He just handed his opponents two big issues they can use to hammer him during the election.

[o3]

since most women support birth control, including catholics, AND women are the largest voting block, then this makes it a non-issue...except for old white guys who gaze at zygotes

[rac3rx]

Except you're an idiot and most people see this as an attack on the First Amendment by an imperial presidency.

[o3]

most people who luvs em sum conspiracies by da kenyian. another insurance reg agiproped to foam & fund-raise the base.
>send ur patriotic donations NOW NOW NOW...its *almost* too late

[MNG]

Yes, it was the feminist who started the Komen (with an e John) flap, not the people who embroiled them in an abortion debate...

But I had a question for those rising so nobly to defend religious liberty in the face of this "unprecedented assault." How is this any worse in terms of religious liberty than the decision by the conservative majority in Employment Division v. Smith?

[John]

Koman never announced publicly they were pulling support from Planned Parenthood. They only game five % of their money anyway. And they never made a public statement about it.

It was planned parenthood who went public and made it political.

We get it MNG, no one on your side ever does anything wrong. It is always the other side's fault. You don't need to repeat that. We know it is your default position.

And this is a political disaster for Obama. IF it wasn't the Dems in Congress wouldn't be bailing on him.

[MNG]

They contracted with PP for non-abortion related services the latter offered. A bunch of pro-life activists within the org then pushed them to break with PP over political reasons, and when the other side pushed back you and your fetus hugging buddies cried and whined.

[John]

So every women's group is obligated to support planned parenthood. And because Koman stopped supporting them, they are wrong.

We get it MNG, PP does nothing wrong. No liberal is ever wrong about anything. Koman is obligated to support PP now and forever because PP is perfect.

You don't have to tell us again.

[MNG]

Oh no John, not so fast. We're talking about who started the political mess. Komen (with an e John) worked with PP in non-abortion areas that facilitated their mission. It was the pro-life side who projected politics into this thing; they went "waaaah, we don't want Komen to have anything to do with bad ol' PP because it does abortions unrelated to the business we do with them." And when they tried to inject politics into Komen, they got the backhand. And now it's double "waaaah."

[John]

Who went public? I think that was planned parenthood. It would not have been political if it had not gone public.

And good luck with getting more people to donate to PP, since it is settled now that once you give to it, you must do it forever or face the feminist thugs.

[MNG]

So as long as you inject politics into a non-political org in secret that's OK? You're a riot John.

[John]

So withdrawing your money is "injecting politics"?

[MNG]

When the contracting is one that facilitates your mission and you withdraw it for political reasons unrelate to your mission, you betcha.

Nobody wants to argue that what PP did for Komen was political or not related to Komen's mission. One side just didn't like non-mission related stuff that PP did that Komen did not deal with. So they wanted to break up the mission related working together over non-mission related other stuff that they didn't work together one. You can't get more political than that.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

It was the pro-life side who projected politics into this thing; they went "waaaah, we don't want Komen to have anything to do with bad ol' PP because it does abortions unrelated to the business we do with them." And when they tried to inject politics into Komen, they got the backhand. And now it's double "waaaah."

Planned Parenthood couldn't have gone to other sources to get funding?

[MNG]

So it's PP's fault because they didn't want to stop doing business with Komen? WTF?

Komen has a mission to fight breast cancer. They contracted with many places to further that mission, including PP which offers many services that would facilitate that mission. But, they offer some services that are unrelated to the mission.

So some people who are upset over those non-mission related things PP does try to end the contracting on the mission related things. PP and others say "wtf, you're injecting an unrelated political mission here." And the Right Wing noise machine tries to spin that as PP injecting politics into Komen!

[John]

So planned parenthood did nothing wrong. Let me put on my surprised face MNG.

Has planned parenthood ever done anything wrong? It is just a saintly organization isn't it?

The rest of us see an organization that didn't need Koman but went public and turned the whole thing in a political fight to war any others that they have no choice but to give money.

You see rainbows and puppies.

[MNG]

I don't see what PP did wrong here in protesting a politically motivated attempt to severe ties on non-political, mission-related contracts with Komen.

As to what they may or may not have done wrong at some other time you'd have to bring up a specific, you're just fishing and doing your usual goal post changing, combined with your usual "you are biased" ref-working.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

So it's PP's fault because they didn't want to stop doing business with Komen? WTF?

You didn't answer the question.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I should point out that this is twice I've asked this question, and the PP defenders have yet to actually provide an answer. One accused me (inaccurately)of never having worked for a non-profit or written a grant proposal, and now MNG claims that PP is a helpless victim and should be entitled to keep the business relationship with Komen active.

Neither of these individuals have actually answered whether or not PP could have gone to alternate sources of funding, which I find extremely telling. Apparently they both look at PP as a sacronsanct institution, not a standard non-profit organization.

[MNG]

I think I answered your question. My answer was, why should they not have protested an attempt by a few politically motivated board members to severe a business relationship that seemed to be facilitating the goals of Komen over unrelated political concerns?

Let's say you were company X with mission Y and you did business with me, company Z on projects that everyone agreed facilitated your mission. But in addition to this business company Z also engages in other business unrelated to your company. Some members of the board of your company don't like that latter business for political reasons unrelated to the mission of your org. They decide to vote to withdraw your business with me. I say to your board, and the public, "wtf? This is no reason to severe our business we do with each other." The board, hearing from investors and weighing that concern, say "yeah, you're right, that would be a silly, politically minded decision on our part."

That's what happened with Komen.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I think I answered your question. My answer was, why should they not have protested an attempt by a few politically motivated board members to severe a business relationship that seemed to be facilitating the goals of Komen over unrelated political concerns?

That's not an answer, that's another question. Furthermore, you compound it by layering it with an irrelevant hypothetical. So I'll ask it again.

Why couldn't have Planned Parenthood found alternative sources of funding?

[DesigNate]

There was no reason for company z to say to the public "wtf? This is no reason to sever (no e mng) our business we do with each other." (Talk about poor sentence structure)

The only reason company z would do such a thing would be to drum up support and get the masses all frothy mad. Especially if company z only received a tiny amount of money from company x.

I'll repeat RRR's question in relation to your hypothetical. Why couldn't company z find alternative sources of funding?

[RoboCain]

Money is fungible.

[rac3rx]

Actually Komen had a long standing policy to not provide grant money to any organization under formal investigation, and PP met the criteria. It wasn't political at all, until PP representatives blew it up.

[Bee Tagger]

You're probably right that people who are relying too much on the "religious liberty" line are playing with fire. Like the example you cite, eventually many of the conservatives up-in-arms right now will find behavior they don't think should be considered part of religious liberty.

Instead, at least for libertarian-minded people, this should just be an issue about 2 parties ability to voluntarily contract.

[Rich]

Instead, at least for libertarian-minded people, this should just be an issue about 2 parties ability to voluntarily contract.

Far from peculiar to the contraception mandate. Much government nonsense boils down to this. I wish Ron Paul would talk about it more.

[MNG]

Now here I actually agree. I think it is just silly to tell an insurer "you must cover blank." That silliness is compounded by saying "you must cover blank, and at this price."

It would be better to just provide for X with tax dollars if it is so damned important.

Ironically the furor is over the attempt to work this out in a more privatized way...

[T]

It would be better to just provide for X with tax dollars if it is so damned important.

You know we're against that, too, right? Just checking because you sometimes seem to forget where you are.

[MNG]

Yeah, I know that. I meant it would be better in my eyes.

"you sometimes seem to forget where you are."

Yes, I realize it really upsets some people for a non-libertarian to weigh in here. This place should be kept a pure circle jerk for true believers only.

[T]

It's the ascribing beliefs to us we don't hold and the strawman army that gets old, not the fact that you post here.

Well, that and your bizarre codependency with John.

[Double D]

Tell me about it...

[Rev. Blue Moon]

How is this any worse in terms of religious liberty than the decision by the conservative majority in Employment Division v. Smith?

There is nothing inherently "conservative" or "liberal" about that decision. What there is, is the inherent tension you get between "liberty" and "equality before the law" when the government is involved in areas in which it should not be.

[MNG]

In that decision two men had their benefits cut off because of a rule that directly conflicted with their religious practices, right? And the SCOTUS said that when a general law or regulation conflicts with religious exercise or belief, if it is neutral then the latter must give way and there must be compliance.

There is a general law now saying insurers of employers must cover contraceptives.

Certainly I don't have to finish the analogy for a law-talking guy like yourself?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Are we arguing? I must have missed that.

Fun hypothetical: what if the law required insurers to cover abortions, MNG? Would you be rah-rah for that as well?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

And if you want to explore this issue further, you can read Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, decided this year, before you go citing Smith as the law of the land or something.

[MNG]

So the Catholic Church employees covered by the contaceptive non-exemption here are ministerial employees?

Yeah, I'm familiar with that case. Fun fact: I know the guy who argued the case for the church.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Well, "who is a ministerial employee?" would be the big question there, right? If ministers are presumably forbidden from taking contraception, for example...

[MNG]

Nice try dude, it's obvious the majority of employees at issue here would fit even under the majorities broad idea of who is a minister.

[MNG]

I'd be happy to answer your question, but only after you stop being so coy and do the same.

A lot of advocates for religious liberty denounced the Smith decision as an unprecedented attack on religious liberty. The Congress nearly unanimously passed the RFRA in response on that idea. The two things are remarkably similar, Obama's non-exemption is just following the logic of Smith: a neutral law demands compliance even for those with religious exceptions to it.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Just because neutral rules have to be followed does not mean you need to have A rule to begin with, right?

[MNG]

But the logic is there, right? The logic of Smith is that the religious don't get an exemption to a neutral law because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

[MNG]

BTW-I noticed you don't want to answer the ministerial question. Seems like your cute reference to the Hosanna case doesn't help when the other guy has done some case reading too, eh?

[R C Dean]

This is a second-order problem, created when the feds exceed their enumerated powers.

Roll the feds back to their Constitutional role, and 99% of the conflict between free exercise and establishment of religion disappears.

Because its a real conflict. When the feds order a religious institution to violate its creed (as they have here), that's a free exercise violation. When they give a religion special treatment under the law, that is arguably an establishment violation (taking the modern, broad view of "establishment").

I'm not sure just saying, well, the Catholics don't have to offer insurance at all really solves the problem, since it is part of their creed to take care of people, including their employees, as well.

The mandate at issue gives Catholics no way to "freely exercise" their religion.

[John]

Exactly. To me this is a real litmus test about how much you care about freedom. A lot of people don't like the Catholic Church, and for good reason. I am one of them. But that doesn't matter. They still have a right to exercise their religion.

What you are seeing is partisan hacks like MNG and people who just hate theists walk away from freedom on this issue.

[MNG]

"Roll the feds back to their Constitutional role, and 99% of the conflict between free exercise and establishment of religion disappears."

That's CRAZY. The vast majority of free exercise and establishment case law has been aimed at cases involving state and local laws. Pick up any casebook on the first amendment and look through it.

[R C Dean]

Granted. I meant the conflict at the federal level.

[MNG]

It's big of you to grant that. Let me return that, if the feds were involved to the extent you adovocate this and several other issues (funding of stem cells or abortion) would be far less common.

It's funny that John talks about "theist haters." I think the problem with this thing is requiring ANY insurer, whether they contract with a religious org or not, to provide X coverage for Y price. It's a nutty thing to do. Even apart from the moralitly of making them do it, the costs will just be passed on.

[R C Dean]

It would be interesting to see how state-level micromanagement would fare under the 1A.

If they can't micro-manage religious organizations without violating the free exercise clause, and can't give them exemptions from micro-management under the establishment clause, that might lead to either some interesting restrictions on state regulation, or a rethink of the current broad reading of the establishment clause.

[Zeb]

It will be interesting to see. But there are a lot more Catholic Democrats than Catholic Planned Parenthood supporters.

[MNG]

I doubt it. What, like 95% of Catholic women say they use(d) birth control knowing it was prohibited by their church.

[John]

You don't understand Catholics. They look at the church as sort of an ideal they never live up to. Yeah, they all use birth control themselves, but they have no desire to use the government to force the church to change.

Obama just pissed away the Reagen Democrats with this decision.

[MNG]

You wish John, you wish.

[John]

Why then are Congressional Democrats turning on him? Are they stupid?

And what do you mean I wish? You said below that you are not an Obama supporter. Don't you want him to lose? Wouldn't you be happy if Catholics turned on him?

You don't sound very happy about this. It is almost as if you want Obama to win or something.

[MNG]

Voting for Johnson and wanting Obama to lose are not the same thing. I don't prefer Romney to Obama, if that is what you mean, I just no longer can support him myself in good conscience.

[John]

"Voting for Johnson and wanting Obama to lose are not the same thing. "

If you don't want him to lose, you still support Obama. And clearly his starting wars don't bother you very much because you think he is fit for re-election.

So again, shut the fuck up about wars. By wanting Obama to win, you forfeit your right to complain.

Sorry but casting a meaningless vote for Johnson and still doing the happy dance over his re-election doesn't cut it. If you really object to the wars, work to make sure Obama pays a price for starting them.

[MNG]

"If you don't want him to lose, you still support Obama."

You're terrible at logic, just terrible, you know that. By that logic you support Romney.

[John]

I want Romney to lose. And I won't care if he loses the election. You on the other hand actively want Obama to win.

You keep saying these wars are wrong and you object to every war. So Obama has started these wars and is killing 1000s of people wrongly in your eyes, and you still want him to win re-election?

That is just horseshit and you know it. You want Obama to win because you support him. And you don't find the wars morally objectionable. You are just claiming you do so you can go back to complaining when a Republican comes back in office. It is so transparent. I can't believe you think anyone will believe you.

[MNG]

So you want Obama to beat Romney? If so you must support Romney!

See your logic problem there John?

[John]

No that would mean I must support Obama, you half wit. And in a sense that is true. If I want Romney to lose then by definition I want Obama to win, if the choice is Obama and Romney.

You want Obama to win no matter who the choice is even though you claim Obama is wrongly starting wars that have killed 1000s of people. That means that you either don't consider wrongly causing the deaths of thousands a moral issue, you are you just a lying sack of partisan shit who will support anyone on your team no matter what.

Given your previous track record, the latter is the overwhelming choice.

[MNG]

So you want Obama to beat Romney? IF you say no, you'd prefer Romney to beat Obama, or even just that you'd prefer Obama not be President, then according to the logic you just used on me you must support Romney!

"You want Obama to win no matter who the choice is"

Full stop: when did I say this?

[John]

No I really don't want Romney to beat Obama. I would rather see hacks like you stuck defending the idiot in chief for another four years. I am not too concerned either way. I certainly won't be troubled by people like you crying over Obama losing.

Do you want Obama to win re-election or don't you? What do you want to see happen this fall? IF Obama wins, are you going to be happy or sad about it?

[MNG]

So let me get this straight: if Romney is the nominee you want to see Obama win?

"Do you want Obama to win re-election or don't you?"

No.

"What do you want to see happen this fall?"

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as the President.

"IF Obama wins, are you going to be happy or sad about it?"

I think it will be bad. But I don't think it would be as bad as Romney as President. Seems you agree with me on that. So, you must want Obama to win!

[MNG]

It's funny, you can almost FEEL John's deflation in that it seems to be slowly dawning on him that he made a big logical error and didn't have me cornered. Boy was he excited!

But John, just because someone says they would prefer X over Y doesn't mean they want X to win. Hilariously, you even admitted to the same thing!

[John]

You are pathetic MNG. You really are.

[shorter MNG]

God, I revel in being a dick!

[John]

What exactly do you think Romney will do that out weighs the immorality of starting wars?

If Obama wins re-election he gets away with doing something you consider immoral. He will pay no political price for it. And all future Dem presidents will know they can start wars and it won't matter.

What could Romney possibly do that would justify that? You are only saying you prefer Obama to Romney because Romney is the only threat to Obama. If Paul or Johnson were, you would find a way to vote against them too.

It is your lying that sucks so bad. You don't think starting wars are that big of deal. But you cannot be honest about it and give up the smug war monger charge against everyone else. And that is just pathetic. Wouldn't it just be easier to be honest? Wouldn't it just be easier to admit these are hard issues and sometimes the other side has a point? Why do you do this to yourself?

[MNG]

It's funny how scattershot John has been here. At first he said

1. "you must support Obama's wars because you are going to vote for him." I said, nope, I'm long on record as voting for Johnson.

2. Undeterred John changes goalpost and says "but you prefer Obama to Romney, that shows you actually support Obama and give him a pass on his wars!" I said, nope, that's a logical error, not wanting Obama to lose to Romney does not mean I want Obama to win, and regardless he's lost my vote so that is hardly "giving him a pass."

3. Undeterred, and changing goalposts again, John says "well, how would Romney be any worse, how can you prefer Obama over Romney?" I say, everything I don't like about Obama and wars Willard seems worse on.

4. Undetterred, John swtiches goals yet again and says "oh, you just say that because you live in Maryland and you know Obama will win!"

John, you're just arguing to be arguing here. You're throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks and if it doesn't you just go to the next pile to throw. Your brain has been deranged by talk radio or something...

[John]

Project much there MNG. You couldn't possibly think that starting these wars was so immoral but Romney such a huge harm that it is okay for Obama to get away with it.

That makes no sense. Maybe you lie to yourself so much, you can't help it. But wouldn't it just be easier to stop calling everyone names and admit the truth? You just can't give up on your smugness. You are too insecure I suppose.

[MNG]

John, it seems plain to me that Romney would be worse on starting wars. That's not just my view, Romney himself has criticized the President on being too soft militarily and drawing down from conflicts too much.

But really, why don't you just change the goalposts again? The fact is that here you can't even take "yes" for an answer. Obama has lost my vote in large part over his actions regarding militarism. In your crazed derangement you've tried to spin my renouncing the man as my giving him a pass or something. That's how far gone you are in your Obama hate. You're even upset when somene says they will no longer vote for him!

[MNG]

But look, we know what's going on. You're a militaristic, warmongerer, and so is your party. You've let it show on threads like the ones from yesterday, and your GOPer buddies did too. You couldn't help yourself. And you have some inkling that this looks bad to the libertarians here. So you are VERY touchy about people pointing out you and your party's warmongering. So you do what movement conservatives do when you're touchy: you try to deflect that by attacking relentlessly, throwing whatever you can, changing goal posts whenever, hoping something sticks, but more importantly hoping something deflects the attention from where it was: on you and the GOP's warmongering. You've tried four actual goal posts changes here, all because you're upset about what? That I will NOT vote for Obama this time? See, that just shows, you're trying to deflect something.

How about this: how about you go to work in your own party and try to defuse some its warmongering if you don't like attention on that. Work with Ron Paul and his supporters to counter every time someone like Romney or McCain or Ghouliani attacks someone like Paul over being insufficiently jingoistic. When your party stops being so warmongering then people will stop pointing that out...

[John]

Yeah MNG, I am so concerned about what looks bad. You just can't comprehend that someone could have honest views. You haven't held an honest opinion in so long, my very existence puzzles and confuses you.

The fact that I don't slam on Obama about the wars, except to call people like you hypocrites, is totally foreign to you. You can't comprehend the idea that anyone could actually hold a consistent position and not change it based on which team is in power.

[John]

No MNG. I just don't believe you. I think it is just theater on your part. You are perfectly happy to see Obama re-elected. I don't believe for a moment that you object to his militarism. You just pretend you do so you can club the other team with it when they are in power.

In short MNG, I think you have very little integrity and nothing you say isn't specifically designed to further whatever partisan end you are working towards. You know your vote won't mean anything. And you know there is a good chance that Obama is going to lose. And you know you are going to want to be able to complain about he next administration. So you feign indignation.

Yes MNG, I really have that little respect for your integrity.

[Eduard van Haalen]

The general counsel for the Catholic Bishops wants to get rid of the contraceptive mandate altogether - all employers, including secular employers, should be free to decide whether to cover contraceptives. "'If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate,' Picarello said."

The New Republic crows that the Catholics have harmed their own case by daring to defend the rights of secular employers:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-st.....Cg.twitter

[T]

Wait, you harm your case against an infringement of your rights by arguing everybody has those rights?

Goddamn, but the logic contortions people go through these days confuse me.

[Eduard van Haalen]

And it harms the "they're asking for special exemptions from the laws everyone else has to obey" meme.

They're not going to give up their First Amendment arguments, but that doesn't mean they want to abandon the secular employers - they're not conceding any legitimacy to that regulation.

[rac3rx]

Like health insurance is not health care, contraception is not health care either. With a few exceptions (e.g. birth control pills used to shrink uterine fibroid tumors), most birth control methods are not used to treat health problems or disease. Will insurance plans be forced to pay for condoms as well? At least condoms are (albeit minimally) effective at preventing STDs. Why must peoples' life choices be subsidized by others? You don't want to pay for your own birth control, and you don't want to have a kid? Don't screw.

[Brett L]

Yeah. I pretty much think of it as the same as forcing all employers to cover plastic surgery for all employees whether it be reconstructing 3rd degree burn damage or buying boobs for healthy b-cups.

[cynica]

Freedom of conscience is the right of the individual, not of the institution.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Corprashuns aren't people!

[John]

Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open

http://hotair.com/archives/201.....itmo-open/

[RoboCain]

BUT BOOOOOOOSSHH!!

[o3]

too early for McChimp Bushitler

[Almanian]

That's Chimpy McHaliburton to you, mister!

[JW]

Looks for his *shocked* face.

[John]

But MNG really objects to these things. He wants Obama re-elected though. But he is really troubled by it.

You have to laugh at these people.

[Rich]

McCain [said] the U.S. should consider "all options including arming the opposition." But U.S. officials said that adding weapons into the volatile and violent situation is not a viable option. "We never take anything off the table. ... However, ... we don't think more arms into Syria is the answer," said State Department spokeswoman

Yes. No. Yes. No.

[John]

I would rather send them arms than send them troops. Let the Syrians fight their own war.

[MNG]

Gotta save our troops for Iran, eh John?

[John]

Ask Obama. He is the one talking about doing it. We get it MNG, when Obama starts wars they are not war wars.

[MNG]

To the extent he's suggested military action I've criticized him. But he beats the war drums a lot less than the GOP and its followers, such as yourself.

It's funny we had some Iran threads yesterday and a lot of people here said "wtf is up with all these Free Republic/AIPAC people posting here?" Hell, they've been here for a long time, it just takes a "war with the moooslims" thread to help them stand out in better releif.

[John]

I never said I said I wanted a war with Iran. I said I think it is in the cards and that is a bad thing.

And when we are at War with Iran this summer, you will still be supporting Obama. Just like you still support him now even though he is fighting a low intensity war against Pakistan and made war against Libya. You have no problem with wars provided the right side starts them.

[MNG]

Yeah John, that's why you went on at length yesterday defending action against Iran. Because they are evil and will close the Straights of Hormuz and libertarians have to stop being so darned isolationists and such.

I've been against every war in my adult life. I marched against the action in the Balkans, and there was a Dem in office then.

You're projecting. We all remember how you began posting here to defend Bush's Iraq folly and WOT actions. You like war. Freedom is worth fighting for, blah, blah, blah. You're on record buddy.

[John]

Who do you plan to vote for? If you are so against these wars, why are you voting for Obama? Clearly you either support them or don't consider them much of a moral issue, which means you really don't object to them in any meaningful way.

Either stop supporting Obama or shut the fuck up about wars. When you support Obama you forfeit your right to complain about other people supporting wars.

[MNG]

Gary Johnson. I said that a while back.

Hell, just two days ago I posted about how sickened I was by Obama's pre-Super Bowl interview where he equated our safety with Israel's and hinted at military action against Iran. You actually responded to that post Mr. Memory!

[John]

So you are on record now as no longer being an Obama supporter and wanting him to lose the election?

You admit that Obama is a failure and does not deserve re-election? You are going on record with that?

[MNG]

John, I've said he's a failure for a long time dude. You're just so wrapped up in your KultureWar you've never noticed.

To you anyone who doesn't hate Obama to the same degree as you is an Obama supporter. You're a fanatic.

[John]

You want Obama to win re-election. You clearly don't find the wars morally objectionable or you would want him to lose so other Democrats would know that you can't do that.

You are a lying sack of partisan shit MNG. I just finally cornered you and made you admit it.

[MNG]

I never said I want him to win re-election, I said I don't want Romney to win. I can't help it if your logical impairment can't tell the difference there.

And one of the main reasons why I will not be voting for Obama this year as I did in 08 is because of his militaristic positions.

[John]

I never said I want him to win re-election,

ah yes you did

MNG|2.9.12 @ 10:02AM|#

Voting for Johnson and wanting Obama to lose are not the same thing. I don't prefer Romney to Obama, if that is what you mean, I just no longer can support him myself in good conscience.

Which thread were you lying in?

[MNG]

So where in there did I say I want Obama to win re-election?

You really don't get your logic misfire here, do you John? Sigh, let me explain it to you like we were in freshan logic class.

Obama could lose to someone other than Romney. Therefore saying "I don't want Obama to win but would rather he beat Romney" in no way means "I want Obama to win."

See?

[John]

Whatever MNG. You don't want Obama to win re-election, you just prefer he beat anyone who happens to be running against him.

Whatever gets you through the night. Do you really think people on here are dumb enough to believe this shit? Really?

[MNG]

John, look, stop compounding your initial logical error dude.

"you just prefer he beat anyone who happens to be running against him"

Yes, because Romney=ANYONE!

[John]

And if you actually objected to the wars, you wouldn't care if Romney won. By your own admission, Obama has started numerous immoral wars that have cost the lives of 1000s. Yet, you are okay with him being re-elected and never paying a political price for that, just so Romney doesn't win.

Just what would Romney do that is so different from Obama that would justify giving Obama a pass on these wars you claim are so wrong?

You are just lying. Shut up and go away.

[MNG]

Wait a minute, you just said upthread that YOU wanted Romney to lose to Obama!

You're like a pretzel with all this twisting dude!

"Just what would Romney do that is so different from Obama that would justify giving Obama a pass on these wars you claim are so wrong?"

I wouldn't give him a pass, in fact he's lost my vote. How utterly deranged are you that you would equate "I will not vote for this man" with "I give him a pass?"

But more to the point, Romney has given every indication that he would be worse on all that than Obama. He wants a war with Iran more than most given his words, he wants to stay in Iraq and AFghanistan where Obama has announced withdrawals, etc. So yeah, he's worse to me.

[John]

"I wouldn't give him a pass, in fact he's lost my vote. "

But he would be re-elected. You would rather see him re-elected and get away with starting those wars than see some vanilla Mass Republican win office.

That means you don't care. And shut up about your vote. You live in Maryland. You know Obama wins that state no matter what. So your vote doesn't mean anything. If it looks like Johnson is going to cost Obama the election, then come talk to me.

[MNG]

Wait John. You said you hope Obama beats Romney, so are you an Obama supporters? Do you "want to see Obama re-elected?"

Lord I pity whoever you practice law for with that kind of thinking!

[John]

"Lord I pity whoever you practice law for with that kind of thinking!"

Sorry I have a profession and you don't. And I pity you. Why I allow you to drag me down to your level is beyond me.

[MNG]

"And shut up about your vote. You live in Maryland"

goal post change!

[Timon19]

Goddammit, it's the STRAIT OF HORMUZ, assholes!

You don't need to mimic John's butchery of every proper noun ever.

[MNG]

You mean the Straight of Koman?

[Long time reader...]

First time commenter:

When are John and MNG just going to get on with the santorum-filled lovefest that it is quite obvious to the rest of us that they are both yearning to consummate?

[^^^This]

They do seem to be enjoying themselves in a weird way.

[Rich]

That having been said, when do you think we'll be sending them cruise missiles and drones, if you catch my drift?

[DJF]

I will raise the same question I have raised for all the other interventions that McCain has advocated.

Do we even know who the opposition is? Or do we just dump weapons in and hope for the best?

[Rich]

Tim, have we won in Libya yet?

[Tim]

Have we Libya'd in Syria yet?

[Hillary Clinton]

Patience, Tim.

[MNG]

What's the point of having this big military if you don't use it?

[Cy Nickelfuque]

It does save or create jobs.

[db]

It certainly opens up jobs in target areas.

[Sparky]

What you did there, I see it.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

When Assad Sr. massacred the rebels in Homs 30 years ago. Most of the rebels at that time were Muslim Brotherhood. Since Homs seems to be where the current uprising is centered at. I am assuming that it is still the MB. If the Assad regime falls the Sunni majority will seize power and I would bet on the Alawites(the religion that Assad and his regime belongs too. That is considered heretical by both Sunni and Shia muslims) and the Christians in Syria being persecuted and slaughtered.

[Eduard van Haalen]

A [Taiwanese?] TV station on Obama v. Catholics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

[robc]

Not as good as their Tebow stories.

[MNG]

George Will on the GOP's Militarism and War Mongering:

"But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely....The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the world's total military spending ? more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8 percent from projections over the next decade?Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama "is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran's closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.") GOP critics say that Obama's proposed defense cuts will limit America's ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good....Republicans who think America is being endangered by "appeasement" and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z7

[John]

So since Obama has gone into Libya and is talking like he is going into Syria and perhaps Iran, will you ever call him a war monger? How many wars does Obama have to start?

[Rich]

Obama didn't start the fi-ya!

[MNG]

Er, I think I did this just yesterday memory machine...

[John]

And how are those mass killings in Libya going? That wasn't really war since no Americans died though.

[MNG]

If you would like to argue that our intervention in Libya was the same as the interventions you've championed in the past (Iraq), feel free. I can point to price tags and American casualties as two pretty big differences.

[John]

I think it is a war. Just because no Americans died doesn't make it less of a war. Obama could carpet bomb people and you would think it was great as long as no Americans died. That is your choice. But do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about what a pacifist you are and how everyone else is a war monger. There are plenty of wars you love.

[MNG]

I would not think it is great, but I think it is BETTEr when no Americans died, everything else considered. Lil' bit of nuance there John.

"There are plenty of wars you love."

Can you name one? When it comes to war love you're a Valentino nobody here can keep up with John!

[John]

Libya. Don't tell me you don't support it. If you didn't and it were important to you, you wouldn't still be supporting Obama. Starting wars is this horrible immoral thing when Republicans do it. When Democrats do it, you somehow don't have a problem with it.

Obama is a war President. He is fighting wars all over the world. I don't hold that against him. And neither do you. But you would if he were a Republican.

Support all the wars you want. Be whatever partisan hack you want to be. But stop pretending you don't support wars or that the other side is somehow worse than you.

[MNG]

I'll wait if you have ANY evidence that I supported the war in Libya. I did argue with you and others that imo that action was not equivalent to our Iraq folly (that you supported). But I also condmended it as "Adventurism" and illegal to boot.

Nice projection though.

[John]

Who do you plan to vote for MNG? And if war is so bad, how can you vote for someone who is starting so many of them you allegedly object to? As I said above, stop supporting Obama or shut the fuck up. You have no moral standing on this issue as long as you support Obama.

[Ken Shultz]

Just for the record, I don't think we started the war in Libya.

The Libyans started the war in Libya. We just picked a side.

That's one of the big differences between what we did in Libya and what we did in Iraq. The Iraqi people didn't start a war with Saddam Hussein. We did.

Participating in a bombing campaign and sending in hundreds of thousands of ground troops isn't the same thing either, but that's another thread.

[R C Dean]

Just for the record, I don't think we started the war in Libya.

We started the war (short though it was) between the US and the Libyan government.

[John]

It is a difference in quality not quality Ken. War is war. You can't say that it is okay to kill these people just because it is easy but not okay to kill those people because it is hard.

And we had been at war with Iraq for 10 years. We just finally got around to invading. We had been enforcing a no fly zone over most of the country and routinely bombing the country since 1991.

I think the Iraqi's who were bombed in things like Desert Fox would disagree with you about there not being a war before 2003.

[T]

I think the Iraqi's who were bombed in things like Desert Fox would disagree with you about there not being a war before 2003.

Ehh, they're foreigners. They don't get to decide if we're at war with them.

[Neu Mejican]

John,

MNG is on record as supporting Gary Johnson.

Are you already drinking?

[John]

But also on record with hoping Obama wins re-election NM. Can you not read the threads? Is that a side effect to your meds?

[MNG]

"But also on record with hoping Obama wins re-election NM."

Where did I ever say that?

[MNG]

BTW NM, speaking of Johnson, is there any buzz about him in your state? What do you think he could pull there?

[Neu Mejican]

I live in Seattle.

[R C Dean]

I think it is BETTEr when no Americans died

So, we just quit just screwing around, and start using nukes?

The issue of the cost of a given war is pretty much a secondary issue, to the issue of whether we should go to war in the first place.

Sure, if you're going to use war as a tool for social engineering in foreign countries, rather than for defense of the US, then the cost issue matters. But that begs the question.

[MNG]

To say American casualties should be an important factor is not to say nothing else should be a factor. You guys are just raping logic left in right.

All things equal wars which cost us less and which have less American casualties are better wars imo. Better just implies "less bad" btw.

[John]

So the Libyans we killed are not a factor? Whatever MNG. We get it, Obama's wars are not war wars. He can start them and still depend on you and others like you for support. When Romney wins this fall, then you can go back to hating all wars. It is just pathetic. You don't even take these questions seriously. It is all just an excuse to tie yourself in knots to explain why your team is better than the other.

[MNG]

Here is what a terrible, terrible thinker you are John. Just take a breath and read these two passages slowly and ponder what your partisanship has done to your thought processes:

MNG|2.9.12 @ 10:15AM|#
To say American casualties should be an important factor is not to say nothing else should be a factor.

John|2.9.12 @ 10:20AM|#
So the Libyans we killed are not a factor?

[MNG]

"It is all just an excuse to tie yourself in knots to explain why your team is better than the other."

And speaking of cornered, sorry, but I'm never letting this bullshit go uncontested again. Because we have you on record as saying that you think your side is better on EVERY issue, while I'm on record as saying the GOP is better than the Dems on MANY issues.

So, nice projection there!

[John]

My side is so much better on every issue, that is why I don't care if Romney beats Obama. Got it MNG.

Bottom line is you still hope Obama beats Romney. Yet, you still claim that Obama has started all of these wrong wars.

Both of those things can't be true unless you really don't care about the wars. And the fact is you don't care about them. You only care to the extent you can some day use it as a club against the other team. And you know it.

[MNG]

No wait, you are on record actually saying that John. Do you want a refresher? You accuse me of saying my side is always better when not only have I said the opposite, but only YOU have said anything like that!

[R C Dean]

That "all things equal" covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it?

[T]

Ceteris paribus, RC. It's a dodge as old as the Romans, at least.

[MNG]

Actually RC that term means the exact opposite of what you are talking about. It means "if we look to other differences in other factors then they certainly matter, it's only when that is equal that they don't and this factor is deciding."

[R C Dean]

It can be used that way, but its more often used to wave away other considerations and focus on the ones that break your way.

[MNG]

Well, I wasn't using it that way, so maybe don't make generalizations to that effect if you acknowledge it can be used differently.

All I'm saying is that all other things, like the justification for a war, the potential blowback, the suffering of non-Americans, etc., being equal, I think a war with less American deaths and loss of dollars is a better, or less worse, than one with higher amounts of both.

By that logic Iraq > Libya > Grenada. For the record if I had to vote on all three (on the wacky idea that Congress should get a say) I would have voted nay.

[John]

There is no less or more here. Something is either moral or immoral. Now if you want to take morality out of it, great. But stop calling everyone else war mongers and questioning their morality.

That is what makes you a pathetic little worm. Is you will do anything to justify how your different than when anyone else does it. No it is not. You either think is okay to kill people for a cause or you don't.

[R C Dean]

All I'm saying is . . . . something trivially true.

Also, I think you got your ">" pointing the wrong way.

[Liberal d-bags]

"No War" really means "Bombing sand monkeys safely from thousands of feet in the air is OK when we do it."

[RoboCain]

"Activists and Anarchists Speak for Themselves at Occupy Oakland"

http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-oakland/1328726021

Apparently, vandalism is speech, if you are an anarchist who wants more government. Or these people are just assholes.

[Well]

Anarchism facilitates vandalism.

[Punk]

I vandalize just fine without anarchism, whatever that is.

[RoboCain]

Don't worry, they don't know either.

[AuH20]

Feministing and associated links are MY sales territory, jerk!

[NotSure]

They are just a-holes.

[Zeb]

They think that the Greek protesters/rioters had the right idea. That should say about all that needs to be said.

[AuH20]

John and MNG, you two are really fucking tiresome. Has anyone ever told you two that?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

I cannot refer you to "Lokai and Bele" enough.

[Tim]

That's it! I'm entering the Reason Destruct Codes...

999, no wait that's the Herman Cain destruct Code...

A little help here.

[Almanian HAL]

I'm sorry, Tim, I can't allow you to do that....

[robc]

Put **ONE** of them in your incif file and you lose their entire subthreads.

Which one is really up to you.

[Lord Humungus]

*ding* and the man in the back wins a ceegar.

[rather]

I think the same of you pee water
Scan, Incif, or STFU

[AuH20]

You just wish you could quit me, rather.

[rather]

I love how you think your anon

[AuH20]

No, I expect you are full on psycho and track me. I just don't care.

The way I figure, if it ends with you locked away somewhere with limited internet access, I shall be toasted and sung about across all the blogs.

[rather]

Honey, you bore me 🙁

[jacob]

I dunno, I think it's kind of amusing.

[Ice Nine]

John and MNG, you two are really fucking tiresome.

You bothered writing that after a measly two-page warm-up?

[SugarFree]

Hangover from yesterday's hate-fuck marathon.

[John]

You are just mad I was cheating on you.

[SugarFree]

I know that MNG will always be your one true love. I have no illusions about our relationship.

[John]

It is just heart breaking the way I treat you sometimes.

[AuH20]

Sometimes Daddy just likes to rub out a quickie.

[rather]

Wow, that's one sapient comment
-Tell us more pee water

[Sparky]

rather: too cool for Hit & Run.

[rather]

Change your plug, Sparky
AuH20 is one of my spoofs who is neither clever, nor entertaining
fuck him

[Sparky]

It especially sucks when someone else inserts something worth reading in the middle of their shitstorms.

[el Commentariosa]

I loved them as The Bickersons.

[NotSure]

Libya another "we have to do something" failure. How many interventions does it take before these people learn that not doing anything is sometimes better than doing something.

[sarcasmic]

i (as in the square root of -1, an imaginary number)

[Mike M.]

Team Obama secretly begging evil Wall Street 1%ers to fund his SuperPac while he vilifies them publicly.

[o3]

the 1% want barry w lube vs teh IRS dry

[Ken Shultz]

The Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities" in response to Syria.

Sounds...what's the word I'm looking for...?

Competent.

They should have a plan to invade every country on earth that could conceivably pose a threat to the security of the United States, and, of course, when there's unrest there, they should update that plan.

Anything less would be incompetent.

[Tim]

Would cost some Colonel his career but wouldn't it be great if the report was one line: "We ain't got no fucking capabilities in Syria."

[Ken Shultz]

A world where colonels shot their mouths off half-baked would be a lot better than a world where the Pentagon didn't bother to plan ahead for anything or update their plans as things became dicey.

Sometimes conspiracy theorists say really outrageous things, but sometimes they try to make ordinary things sound outrageous and conspiratorial.

Did you know that the Pentagon has a secret plan to invade Syria--already in place?

Damn it, they better have a plan to invade Syria already in place--that's their freaking job! And they better keep the plan secret too; how effective is our plan likely to be if the [insert enemy] knows all about it ahead of time?

[Zeb]

Ken, I'm curious, what do you think about Libya now?

[NotSure]

They don't care, its almost like a computer game level, once you finished it you forget about it and move on to the next level.

[Ken Shultz]

I'm still glad we participated in the way that we did.

I think getting rid of that vicious dictator will benefit us over the long run in the War on Terror.

Also, regardless of what Libya goes through in the coming years, I think the opportunity for Libyans to choose a future for themselves will be good for Libya in the long run.

I think of it sort of the same way as I see the American Civil War in relation to the American Revolution. The Civil War was a horrible thing, but I wouldn't point to the Civil War and say, "See, we should never have fought for our independence--the American Revolution was a mistake!" Whatever Libya goes through in the coming years, I think that's the way they'll look back at overthrowing Gaddafi.

The Libyan Revolution may not go like the American Revolution did, however. It could go the way of the French Revolution, where all sorts of people get beheaded, Reign of Terror, all of that.

But that's the way it goes with freedom. Now that the Libyan people are free to choose the government they want, they could choose something awful. They could choose something that's bad for the United States, too. But even if the worst happens, I think it's important to remember that we weren't the ones who chose to overthrow Gaddafi. The Libyan people did. We chose to get on the right side of history instead of playing it the same way we've been playing places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia since the Cold War.

I'd rather everything had been done constitutionally, but within the debate over whether Congress should have supported what the president was doing in a constitutional way? I think stepping in was the right and smart thing to do. Even if the Libyans vote in an Islamist government. Even if it descends into Civil War. In the choice between standing by and doing nothing while a dictator we had recently started coddling again violently suppressed his people, actions which in the past helped flood places like Afghanistan with Libyan Islamist jihadi? Or stepping in and helping the Libyan people win the right to choose their own path? I think we made the right choice at the time.

[Ken Shultz]

But even if the worst happens, I think it's important to remember that we weren't the ones who chose to overthrow Gaddafi. The Libyan people did. We chose to get on the right side of history instead of playing it the same way we've been playing places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia since the Cold War.

Think of it this way: if the Libyan people were going to overthrow Gaddafi after a long, drawn out civil war anyway? Isn't it better to have assisted on the side of the Libyan people?

We should give them some kind of monument to remember us by like the French gave us the State of Liberty.

They don't like statues over there, but we could think of something.

[o3]

it was proper to support our AU & NATO allies' & partners' requests to intervene

[NotSure]

The AU was actually pro Ghaddafi.

[o3]

except when the bengazi massacre was imminent, then the AU called 911

[NotSure]

? AU called 911 ?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

As for "imminent bengazi massacre", unless you have the power of seeing the future, that was simply a very lame excuse to start the war, the fact that dimwits like you believe such crap does however prove that it does work unfortuanetely.

[o3]

im simply quoting qadaffi who instructed his mech battalion to exterminate the rats in bengazi.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

except when the bengazi massacre was imminent, then the AU called 911

Note that our intervention was ostensibly to "shield civilians from being massacred." Funny how that shield went up and stayed up all the way to Tripoli.

[R C Dean]

And then suddenly dropped when it was "our guys" doing the massacring.

[Ken Shultz]

The AU was actually pro Ghaddafi.

Are you guys talking about the Arab League?

They were crucial to winning the Libyan civil war. Qatar was absolutely crucial to winning the Libyan civil war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....64650.html

[NotSure]

The AU supported Ghaddafi because he gave them money, but probably also because of the fact that the biggest victims of this war are the African immigrants, it seems the "responsibility to protect" did not apply to them.

[R C Dean]

I don't see how this was a NATO issue. Nobody was attacking a NATO ally.

[Gray Ghost]

I don't see how this was a NATO issue.

Wasn't Italy bent about the large number of Libyan refugees that were washing up on several of their islands in the Med?

I agree with you, FWIW.

[NotSure]

Why bother writing that long winded piece of shit. Simply write: "I does not matter what happens in Libya all that matters is USA USA USA !"

[NotSure]

Why bother writing that long winded piece of shit. Simply write: "It does not matter what happens in Libya all that matters is USA USA USA !"

[Ken Shultz]

Because what I wrote can't be reduced to that.

[NotSure]

Go back to school then and stop using Tom Clancy novels as your guide to the world.

[Ken Shultz]

Sorry, for a second there I thought you have some legitimate question or at least something interesting to say.

[R C Dean]

I think getting rid of that vicious dictator will benefit us over the long run in the War on Terror.

I don't. He wasn't a player in the war, and getting rid of him cleared the way for our enemies to pick up another safe harbor/sponsor.

Isn't it better to have assisted on the side of the Libyan people?

Only if the Libyan people don't turn out to be Islamists who are happy to host terrorists. Which seems to be the case.

That's the problem with the rosy view of the Arab spring. It assumes that democracy in those countries will result in secular liberal regimes, when there is precious little evidence that a plurality of people in those countries want secular liberal regimes. To date, it appears that a plurality wants Islamist regimes, and certainly don't seem to care much if they are militant Islamists.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

It amazes me how little people know about the countries they advocate we go to war with. Now people are saying we need to go to war with Syria. Without any idea about the demographic make up of that country and who would come out on top.

[John]

Or that sometimes there are no good options. It sucks that Assad is in power. But that doesn't mean him leaving won't be worse.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

John if the Assad regime falls the Muslim Brotherhood(Al-Queda) will end up in power there. They have been trying to seize power for 30 years. AL-Assad sr. had to slaughter 20,000-30,000 of them in Hama in 1982 to stop them. If the Sunnis get control I wouldn't want to be a Syrian Christian,Druze,and definitely not a Alawite.

[Ken Shultz]

I don't. He wasn't a player in the war, and getting rid of him cleared the way for our enemies to pick up another safe harbor/sponsor.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. The good thing about having Qaddafi out of the way isn't because he was a safe harbor for terrorists--to the contrary. We were cozying up to him again specifically because he was a vicious opponent of the terrorists (and because he abandoned his WMD program).

The good thing about having Qaddafi out of the way is because his vicious dictatorship drove so many disaffected people into the arms of terrorists and their recruiters. The reason there were so many ex-jihadis in Libya who had experience fighting in Afghanistan is because there had been so many of them driven out of Libya by Qaddafi--that they ended up in Afghanistan.

Only if the Libyan people don't turn out to be Islamists who are happy to host terrorists. Which seems to be the case.

I certainly hope Libya doesn't turn into a production factory for terrorists, but I don't think you appreciate that's more or less what it was under Qaddafi. If there was any chance of that situation improving, Qaddafi had to go. There was no way that situation was going to improve until Qaddafi was out of the way.

That's the problem with the rosy view of the Arab spring. It assumes that democracy in those countries will result in secular liberal regimes, when there is precious little evidence that a plurality of people in those countries want secular liberal regimes. To date, it appears that a plurality wants Islamist regimes, and certainly don't seem to care much if they are militant Islamists.

You make it sound as if the Arab Spring was our choice.

It wasn't.

We didn't get to choose whether there would be an Arab Spring. It would have happened with us or without us. While our contributions from the air no doubt helped move things along faster than they would have otherwise, I suspect the Libyan people would have won their battle eventually. In fact, the contribution of the Qataris on the ground was probably greater than anything we did--and that would have happened with or without our involvement.

The question wasn't whether we wanted an Arab Spring; the question was: given that there IS an Arab Spring and the people of North Africa ARE overthrowing their dictators, which side do we want to be on?

We'd been on the side of the dictators since the Cold War. Mubarak was our man, and Qaddafi was being rehabilitated. If we were ever going to change direction--and since the Cold War is over, we really should--then that was the opportunity to do it.

No American troops on the ground. No responsibility for rebuilding Libya once it's over. Not much in they way of taxpayer dollars! We got whatever we got in Libya for less than one half of one percent of what Iraq cost us.

Our contribution in Libya was a smart move and a bargain--especially considering that it was going to happen with or without us anyway.

[NotSure]

It would be interesting to see how they argue the ludicrous idea that Syria is a threat to US security.

[o3]

just take newt's bombast about iran & sub syria & violin!...the syria threat!

[Ken Shultz]

Are you aware of Syria's state support of terrorism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....rism#Syria

Don't you think Assad might be willing to use those "assets" against American interests if the only alternative were his falling from power? Iran remains a staunch ally of Syria and vice versa; if the U.S. somehow ended up in a conflict with Iran, don't you think Syria might become an issue?

I'm against going to war with Syria, but let's be ready to counter the arguments in favor of going to war.

[NotSure]

Can you name a single American killed by a Syrian government agent ?

Iran is not a threat to America either, any conflict that occurred between America and Iran would be started by America.

[o3]

no, iran does threaten our 51st state...and u know who that is. SAY IT

[R C Dean]

Dude, I think you meant 58th state.

[Ken Shultz]

Iran is not a threat to America either, any conflict that occurred between America and Iran would be started by America.

A nuclear Iran is a threat to American security. They're a state sponsor of terror, and they can launch satellites into space with their rockets.

Just because Iraq was a huge mistake and I'm against war generally is no reason to pretend that Iran isn't a security threat.

[Tulpa]

Here we go with the "it's not Iraq" argument again. Just like in the runup to the Libya fiasco.

[Tulpa]

You're against war generally.

Just not in Libya, Syria, Iran,....

[Tulpa]

How's Libya doing these days, Ken?

[Old Mexican]

Pentagon to allow more women in more combat roles.

The troops need more entertainment...

[Cranberry]

What might happen when the inevitable rape by an enemy combatant occurs? Will the army then be crucified for not providing enough protection for it's female soldiers? Will the men in her unit be held for trial because they didn't "do enough" to protect her?

Remember the scene in the film G.I. Jane where Vigo Mortenson beats the shit out of Demi, subdues her, pulls her pants down and asks her is this what she really wants? The second half of that scene shows her kicking his ass back, but in reality I don't think that would happen. In reality, she would likely be raped into incoherence and left to die.

I just don't see women in combat. They are getting more than they are bargaining for and are going to find out, quickly and painfully, just what the cost of combat is.

And I can only imagine what it might be, because I've never seen combat except in films, and have no desire to be placed in that situation. I praise the men who do. I don't know any women who have the chops.

[RoboCain]

Posted a different link about this yesterday, but not with that shirt!

http://moonbattery.com/?p=7855

[jacob]

Creepy.

[Almanian]

*faceFUCKINGpalm*

[Sparky]

I went to your link and somebody probably has me marked as a pedophile now. Thanks.

[RoboCain]

You misspelled "right-wing terrorist".

[Old Mexican]

Meanwhile: Liberated Libya slipping into chaos.

"We build nations the old fashioned way: By slipping them into chaos!"

[Detroit]

Chaos rules!

[Kharne the Betrayer]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

[Tzeentch]

JUST AS PLANNED.

[P Brooks]

not doing anything is sometimes better than doing something.

CRAZY TALK!!!

Janet Napolitano shall hear of this.

[Almanian]

So, have we won in Oakland yet?

[P Brooks]

Team Obama secretly begging evil Wall Street 1%ers to fund his SuperPac while he vilifies them publicly.

"Hehehe... c'mon Honey, I was just joshing with the boys. I wasn't really serious. You know I love you. Now gimme fitty bucks."

[Old Mexican]

Do Catholics Have Too Many Babies?

The Obama Administration Seems To Think So

Hon. Andrew P. Napolitano

When we were colonists and fought a war against the king and Parliament so that we could secede from the British Empire and be independent of it, we also fought for the value of personal freedom. That is the idea that in matters of personal choice, the government should play no role. The king only cared about the colonists' personal choices if he could control or tax them.

One of the taxes he imposed was to support the Church of England. The Church of England that the colonists' tax dollars supported was, of course, in England; it was not here. So, among the hateful taxes that impelled the colonists to revolt was this tax to support the king's church.

When the Constitution was written, religious freedom was a principal matter for discussion and debate among the Framers. They addressed this in the first clause of the First Amendment. Before the Constitution even protects the freedom of speech, it protects the natural right to worship or not to worship, free from the government. Here is what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is very direct and clear. It was intended to prevent any tax money from going to a church, and it was intended to keep the government from using its coercive powers to influence or to punish religious institutions. For 125 years, most governments in America left churches alone.

Then along came the progressive attitude that some ethnic groups are superior to others. This is a damnable and racist view that was foist upon the federal government by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, in direct response to the influx of southern European immigrants at the beginning of the last century, most of whom were Catholic. Roosevelt and Wilson and their progressive followers thought these immigrants had too many children, children who would grow up to be voters and vote out their Nanny State central-planning values. So they began to encourage birth control and sterilizations and even abortions.

The Catholic Church resisted this by its teachings on birth control. The Church had made its teaching on contraception a core part of its mission for 400 years, and Pope Paul VI reaffirmed these teachings in a permanent way in 1968. That the Church embraces these teachings is well known, and equally as well known is the policy of the federal government to resist them.

But that resistance reached unconstitutional proportions a few weeks ago when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, herself a Catholic, issued regulations that require all employers in America to provide health insurance that makes contraceptive materials and devices available to their employees. The "all employers" includes Catholic universities, Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools and even local Catholic churches. The failure to comply with this law will result in a fine to these institutions and the provision of contraceptive coverage to their employees by the government itself.

This is quite literally Congress making a law that interferes with the free exercise of religion. This is not about the morality of contraception. This is about the constitutionality of government coercion, coercion of religious institutions, coercion directly and profoundly prohibited by the Constitution itself. The motivation for the coercion ? that Catholics have too many babies ? is reprehensible, and those in government who embrace that and are willing to use the power of government to resist that should be voted out of office. But the coercion is the same as that faced by the folks who seceded from England because of the king's tax to pay for his church.

We have a king today, and he wants a tax to pay for his church. The king is the president, and his church is called Obamacare. We can't let this happen here. This is not just a Catholic issue. This is an issue about whether the Constitution means what it says. Does the Constitution let the government compel Jews to eat pork, or Protestants to genuflect, or Muslims to own dogs, or Catholics to pay for contraception? The answer is obvious.

We Catholics reproduce like rabbits. Sebelius is right to stem our human wave!

[John]

I wonder what this will do to the Hispanic vote? Many of them are quite serious Catholics.

[Cranberry]

Does the Constitution let the government compel Jews to eat pork, or Protestants to genuflect, or Muslims to own dogs, or Catholics to pay for contraception?

It's less of a compulsion to use BC than it is to make it available. It would be more equivalent to say that Jewish delis must sell pork because some of it's customers don't object to it and indeed want it. Or that a vegan restaurant must make meat available on it's menu, because some of it's patrons don't hold with vegan beliefs even if they like the services from time to time.

[Abdul]

BC is available, and employees of Catholic institutions already use it. Everyone can live with that.

The change is that now, instead of using a portion of one's Catholic salary to buy contraception, one will submit the reciept to the Church and get reimbursed. That's the problem.

[Zeb]

"We Catholics reproduce like rabbits."

Yes, and unfortunately, these days you (well, not you) seem to be producing a lot more collectivists than individualists.

[Margaret Sanger]

I'm so proud!

[RoboCain]

"Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman's vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child," the amendment states.

http://houston.cbslocal.com/20.....hood-bill/

[Almanian]

Guess some people take that "don't spill your 'seed'" thing seriously.

[SugarFree]

It's in the Bible, yo.

8 Then Judah wuz liek "OK Onan, u know WHERE HARBLZ GO wif ur brother's wife. Its ur job now to make kittenz for ur brother."

9 But Onan knew that the kittenz would not be hiz (bcz thatz how Jewish law workt LOL) so he wuz all "DO NOT WANT" n soz he pulld out n got man juice on teh floorz.

10 Ceiling Cat didnt likez that neithr cuz tehn no kittehz are get created. So Ceiling Cat killded him too.

[RoboCain]

You should write a whole bible like that.

[SugarFree]

http://www.lolcatbible.com

[RoboCain]

Woah!

To think that much free time exists in the universe.

[rac3rx]

Holy sheep shit, Batman!

[o3]

no kiddin

[RoboCain]

"But please stop shoving your penis cake in my face. Shaved coconut pubes? How creative. I'm still not interested. Please don't demand that I play "Pass the Vibrator." I think sex toys belong in the nightstand drawer. And don't expect me to drink from a penis straw. It's just not going to happen."

http://thegloss.com/odds-and-e.....straw-908/

[John]

Wow, she sounds like a barrel of laughs in bed.

[Almanian]

...but looks like one of the inhabitants of a barrel of monkeys...

[SugarFree]

Although I agree with the paragraph quoted. I really don't want to drink from a penis straw.

[R C Dean]

I'd google "penis straw", but, you know, work computer.

[SugarFree]

Bachelorette.com carries a full line of penis straws, including bendy penis straws for the bent nail syndrome groom and glow-in-the-dark penis straws for the alien abduction rape fantasy bride.

[db]

I would think that just posting the words "penis straw" from a work computer would raise some eyebrows. This is why i use my phone to read this blog when i have time at work.

[R C Dean]

Oh, great.

[starts packing office]

[John]

No one said you were any fun either SF.

[tarran]

Just because a person isn't into raunchy parties does not mean they aren't fun in the sack. Some people are just not exhibitionists and TNWWT.

[Almanian]

Hey, anyone wanna set up a parody account of "feministing" called "manyfisting"?

C'mon, it'll be fun!

[Every Stupid man]

Yes

[RoboCain]

Feministing is already a parody.

[Every Stupid man]

No, men who lurk there are the caricature

[DesigNate]

Yes rather, it's men who are the caricatures.

/sarcasm

[Every Stupid rather]

FUCK YOU, DAD!!!

[P Brooks]

Damn it, they better have a plan to invade Syria already in place--that's their freaking job!

I agree. However, there needs to be careful consideration of what might actually be GAINED by invading Syria (or Iran, or Zimbabwe, or Belgium). And by that, I am not referring to votes.

[R C Dean]

Well, certainly, there's increased Pentagon funding.

[AuH20]

So, on Archer tonight, Archer gets a badass spy car for his birthday.

Not as good a premise as last week, but we shall see.

[JW]

I thought last week was a little flat. Had it's moments, but it's no Blimp or Everglades episode.

[P Brooks]

Dick Bove was on Bloomberg a little while ago, pointing out how the "foreclosure settlement" fucks the responsible in favor of deadbeats.

Yay, fairness!

[Zeb]

Yup. Where the fuck is my principle reduction? I guess it was sill of me to spend all those years saving money for a down payment.

[Fluffy]

It's a little late for this, and everyone has probably moved on to a new thread, but I just remembered:

Fuck the ACLU.

Dear Fluffy,

Lobbying groups ? led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ? are trying to use religion to discriminate and deny millions of women urgently needed access to birth control.

(Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)
Anti-choice forces around the country are yelling from the rooftops about religious freedom. But what they actually mean is the use of religion to discriminate and deny millions of women access to birth control.

Now anti-family planning politicians in Congress are getting in on the action and trying to reverse the President's critical decision, which would ensure access to birth control for millions of women.

We must stand with President Obama ? believe me, he's hearing from the other side, starting with Speaker Boehner who has pledged to reverse this rule.

Tell your members of Congress: Stand up to right-wing efforts to use religion to discriminate and deny millions of women urgently needed access to birth control. (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information already filled in.)

Let's be clear. The current law does not require religious institutions like churches or synagogues to include birth control in their employee's health insurance.

But, when lobbying groups ? led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ? insisted that the exemption be expanded to include religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other institutions, jeopardizing coverage for millions of women, the Obama administration drew a line in the sand.

If the lobbying groups get their way, a woman teaching at a Catholic university could not get coverage. Or, a nurse working at an evangelical Christian hospital could be denied access to basic health care.

Tell Congress to stand with the President and American women.

Anti-choice forces are screaming that the Obama administration's efforts to protect women's access to birth control are part of a "war on religion." This explosive accusation is untrue but their hope is that if they repeat it often enough, they can get Congress to roll back our rights. We can't let that happen.

Religious freedom is about protecting people of all faiths, not imposing the values of some on the rest of us.

Thank you for acting quickly in this critical moment,

Laura W. Murphy
Director, Washington Legislative Office

I always forgave the ACLU for not being so great on the 2nd, 5th and 10th amendments because they were supposed to be so good on the 1st.

But this fucking whore apparently thinks that the state's power to regulate interstate commerce is so absolute that it trumps the 1st amendment. That makes her a totalitarian.

Fuck the ACLU.

[John]

It is just sorry and sad fluffy. And I respect the hell out of you for being right on this. You are hardly a friend of the Church. But good for you for having the integrity to understand that freedom means the right of everyone, not just the people you like.

As I said above, this issue is a real litmus test for people who claim to care about free expression.

[R C Dean]

I love how "not paying for" = "denying access".

Nobody is stopping those women, all of whom have jobs, I should point out, from just "accessing" their own wallets to buy their pills.

[RoboCain]

This.

And isn't contraception basically safety equipment for a recreational activity? Are they also going to pay for bike helmets and shooting goggles?

[Red Rocks Rockin]

As I've pointed out before, a box of condoms is a hell of a lot cheaper than pharmaceutical contraceptives. But then I guess the people supporting this mandate are more concerned with the state subsidizing the desire to go bareback.

[Priestess]

Who actually has their health insurance pay for this anyway? Condoms are cheap.

[Heroic Mulatto]

If the lobbying groups get their way, a woman teaching at a Catholic university could not get coverage. Or, a nurse working at an evangelical Christian hospital could be denied access to basic health care.

Well, said women always have the choice of not working for those institutions.

[R C Dean]

Actually, I think what she meant to say is that "If the Obama admin gets its way, no employees of Catholic universities or evangelical hospitals could get coverage, because those institutions will drop their health plans entirely."

[Tulpa]

Can't do that with PPACA the law of the land.

[rEV mARGE]

Sounds pretty rock solid to me dude.

http://www.anon-pc-tools.tk

[Matrix]

ATF Busts housewives for buying guns for Cartels

But no one in the justice department has yet been arrested for F&F.

Fantastic.

[buy3buy.com]

omg,cheap

[lawgrace]

Aside from appalling foreclosure frauds by lenders and servicers, URGENT attention needs to be given to the Elephant in the Room -hiding in plain sight: Lawyers who intentionally file foreclosure proceedings in Civil Courts, and who file fabricated "Lift Stay" motions and "Proof of Claims" in Bankruptcy courts when they know fully well the LENDERS ARE DEFUNCT, ought to be investigated and prosecuted!

Lenders and Bankers ARE NOT required to know law and court procedure as it pertains to legitimate pleadings that become filed in court, but lawyers are required! Yet, untold numbers of lawyers are engaged in Real Estate racketeering in probably every State across the nation. All anyone has to do is look at the thousands of falsified property deeds that become filed into court records by lawyers who pretend to have carried out legal auctions. Instead, those lawyers held "simulated" auctions whereby their friends or even court personnel, illegally placed "credit bids" on real estate and walked away with homes unlawfully.

Millions of people are living outdoors because of NULL foreclosures carried out by lawyers -which the properties never become returned to lenders. Lenders file falsified IRS 1099-A's and collect mortgage insurance, etc. Often, those illegally acquired properties become ILLEGALLY FLIPPED AND SOLD TO FREDDIE MAC. To repeat, this decades of existing racketeering is clearly visible by looking at Bankruptcy Court and Civil Court, and Sheriff auction records to see property deeds recorded in illegal names. As such, incalculable amounts of foreclosed properties that have been sold, have fatally defective property titles, because the owners NEVER LAWFULLY LOST OWNERSHIP OF THEIR HOMES. *more @ http://www.change.org/petition.....re-lawyers