ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

The French hunt the jihadists

As Americans and Brits alike have are wringing their hands over Donald Trump's very moderate, entirely constitutional, and woefully insufficient proposal, the French are actively hunting the jihadists in their midst:
Police investigating the Paris terror attacks have shut down three mosques in a series of raids to close the net on Islamic extremists, the Express reports. Police in France also arrested the owner of a revolver found during Wednesday's raid, France's Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

Security officials found jihadist documents at the mosque where yesterday's raids took place.

They have placed nine people under house arrest. Another 22 have been banned from leaving the country Mr Cazeneuve said.

France has been under a state of emergency since 130 people were killed in a series of terror attacks in Paris on November 13. Since then, some 2,235 homes and buildings have been raided, 232 people taken into custody, and 334 weapons confiscated.

Cazeneuve said the number of weapons apprehended so far is staggering. He said: "In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year."
All pro-gun advocates should strongly endorse the immigration ban and support the repatriation of all enemy nationals because the eventual alternative is a state of emergency and French-style crackdowns that will likely encompass the native population.

Now think about how many weapons are already stashed in the mosques across America.

Labels: ,

147 Comments:

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 8:07 AM  

Now think about how many weapons are already stashed in the mosques across America.

Honestly? I think this would only make a difference in certain cities. In France, the city doesn't matter, because the terrorists are going to have the armament advantage anywhere that isn't a military base.

But in America? Where civilian gun stores outnumber military supply depots (a pattern not shared by the rest of the world)? Where Americans bought enough guns in one day to re-outfit the entire Marine Corps?

Really not as big a concern. The number of stashed IEDs, however, is a potential cause for concern.

Blogger Hunsdon December 10, 2015 8:09 AM  

If TPTB try to institute a state of emergency and French-style crackdowns that will likely encompass the native population, it's not the jihadis they should be worried about. It's that self-same native population.

Blogger Phillip George December 10, 2015 8:13 AM  

Aurelie Chatelain was one death, far too many. Muhammad's fingerprints. It isn't finished till it's finished.

If MI5 don't have the resources to track every known threat then one policy can relieve them. For all the tens of thousands of British taken by musselmen slavers, dying anonymously in unmarked graves. And to prevent tomorrow's. this post.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 10, 2015 8:15 AM  

I thought the French were blessed by a ban on rifles and handguns? These rifles they found in the mosques certainly aren't AR-15's but are most likely fully automatic AK-47's.

Blogger Nate December 10, 2015 8:32 AM  

what you see in america is very odd. You will find very large elaborate mosques in small cities with a muslim population that is far to small to support them. The mosques just sit there. Most are surrounded by large security fences and you never see more than one or 2 cars in the large otherwise empty parking lots.

Bizarre.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 8:39 AM  

@5

In the words of Ra's al'Ghul, theatricality.

Blogger Salt December 10, 2015 8:43 AM  

You will find very large elaborate mosques in small cities with a muslim population that is far to small to support them.

Shows planning. They are ready, prepared for future use.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 8:43 AM  

If by "enemy Narional" you mean Muslim, citizen or not, support support for repatriation won't matter. You will need to change the Constitution first. And that won't happen. Best hope for cleansing America of Muslims is killing parties by people willing to die.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite December 10, 2015 8:48 AM  

The gun fight in America is a contest between confiscators and clingers.

The main threat to the clingers is that they owe their legal rights to a five votes to four Supreme Court decision, and they can lose them with a five votes to four decision going the other way.

Muslims have nothing to do with this.

Blogger Marie December 10, 2015 8:55 AM  

@ McWhite

We are better armed than the confiscators. And we drink beer with the local police.

Blogger Marie December 10, 2015 8:59 AM  

@Leo

Let's not get too sure of ourselves. Some of the guns purchased on Black Friday probably ended up in their stockpiles.

I agree IEDs are a bigger threat but they can still kill a lot of people with the element of surprise and a stockpile of weapons.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 10, 2015 9:00 AM  

The gun fight in America is a contest between confiscators and clingers.

The main threat to the clingers is that they owe their legal rights to a five votes to four Supreme Court decision, and they can lose them with a five votes to four decision going the other way.


This isn't a problem at all.

Our "legal rights" are owed to our political strength in legislatures and executive races, where we've run rampant since 1986. For all the drama the chattering classes have had with Heller and McDonald, they've changed absolutely nothing outside of D.C. and Illinois, and the current lineup in the court has made uniformly anti-gun decisions since then, the most recent a few days ago allowing unlimited restrictions on the the types of guns we're allowed to own.

Yeah, it's nice for propaganda, but mostly for our own side and the squishy middle, the Left knows very well that as soon as they have an outright majority and can manufacture some cases and get them all the way to the top they'll reverse both decisions. I for one am not sure the US as such will even exist by then, especially since Kagan at least is not reflexively anti-gun and might delay such an anti-gun majority.

Anonymous Homesteader December 10, 2015 9:05 AM  

Yes, the Saudis have laid their plans well, along with
ahistorical Americans as their patsies.

(I do notice the pattern is now "religious freedom and tolerance" for MUSLIMS, but "separation of church and state" for CHRISTIANS. ( Will it ever be separation of mosque or temple and state?)

The advantage we have thus far is that arabs and muslims in general, have an average IQ about 1SD to the left of white anericans.

(Just like another violent, impulsive, gov't protected group we've been dealing with forever, it seems.)

They won't be hard to deal with once the festivities begin.

Anonymous Incurvatus December 10, 2015 9:08 AM  

If someone has Trump's ear, please remind him that under the 13th Amendment, servitude as punishment for a crime is allowed. If a deportation order is violated, the criminal punishment is XX years in the federal penitentiary macramé-ing hog entrails and rendering lard for G.I. bullet lube. Early release and repatriation expenses are payable in gold equal to the beginning weight of the prisoner.

Anonymous Homesteader December 10, 2015 9:14 AM  

Regarding muslim immigration-when did America start the large scale importation of muslims? I know about Ford's Dearborn contingent, but more recently? Whose bright idea was this?

(I am curious as to whom we should "thank" when the time comes...)

Anonymous bw December 10, 2015 9:19 AM  

Trump's very moderate..

That is the absurd part of the whole thing. Very moderate indeed.

Now think about how many weapons are already stashed...

And ask yourself: do the Intel Agencies really not know? Riigghhtt.

Anonymous Homesteader December 10, 2015 9:21 AM  

And remember- ALL muslims are jihadists. To be a muslim is to accept either the direct obligation for, or give direct support to, jihad. Every muslim in the dar-al-harb is a jihadist.
Period. Full stop.

OpenID genericviews December 10, 2015 9:28 AM  

Another 22 have been banned from leaving the country Mr Cazeneuve said.

Banned? They should be encouraged to leave the country. Even if there is no evidence to convict them, they are certainly "connected" and not the sort of people any civilized country should want inside their borders.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 10, 2015 9:31 AM  

My WAG is that the violent Islamic extremists are in the USA in numbers enough to control the discourse of the rest. Listen to the rhetoric it's always very generalized never specific. If I were interrogating I could have them sweating within 5 questions

In short the Caliph is their weak spot he is fucking gold to us

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 10, 2015 9:37 AM  

I thought most of the Michigan enclave were the Bow Tied Brownshit disciples of Elijah Mohammed? More COGIC or AmeZion heretics than actual adherants of Arabic Islam.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 9:37 AM  

"And remember- ALL muslims are jihadists."

Homesteader,
Do you dress yourself or is that the job of your caretakers?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 10, 2015 9:45 AM  

Whatever my above opinion is worth I basically came about it from a Twitter comment Iowahawk made in shutting down that buffoon from Britain Piers Morgan

Blogger pyrrhus December 10, 2015 9:45 AM  

When the French shut down all the (Saudi-financed) mosques, I will be much more impressed.

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 10, 2015 9:48 AM  

@ 20 Arrogance + ignorance keep it up and find out what that equation equals.

Blogger Matamoros December 10, 2015 9:53 AM  

With the growing population percentages of Muslims in France and Germany one can only wonder how much longer such a crackdown will even be possible.

Anonymous WillBest December 10, 2015 9:54 AM  

This sort of thing only happens in a country without a first and second amendment. Has any SJW tried to make sense of it? Going door to door confiscating guns should give them tingles, but since its targeted against brown people that should have them running for safe spaces.

It isn't apples to apples but it is amusing that upwards of 10% of the population is ignoring Frances "sensible" gun restrictions. 2200 buildings raided, 250 people found possessing 350 war grade (I love that descriptor) guns.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 10, 2015 9:56 AM  

Wet Duck- every moslem either supports jihad or risks beheading. Just as moslems see welfare/section 8 as something they are entitled to under jizya. Any moslem that said "don't throw the faggots off the roof", would be tossed off as well.

the growing population percentages of Muslims in France and Germany one can only wonder how much longer such a crackdown will even be possible

Cut off their welfare benefits, they only survive in the west using the funds of others.

Blogger Matamoros December 10, 2015 9:57 AM  

@12

Here is an article on the gun control subject that is not really pro, but realistic.

Is Gun Control Even Possible in the U.S.?
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/is-gun-control-even-possible-in-the-u-s

It notes that "Australian style" gun control only got 20% of the guns out of circulation. My friends in Oz agree saying that everyone still has theirs stored. Only the old broken down guns were surrendered.

So out of 200 million guns in Oz, only 650,000 were surrendered.

Americans have bought that many in the last 2 months alone.

She notes that it is realistically probably not possible to take American guns.

Anonymous bw December 10, 2015 10:00 AM  

The French hunt the jihadists

Who are long time French citizens at this point. Time to go back.
Way back.

but more recently? Whose bright idea was this?

My understanding, the Bush admins and neo-con War machine, Clinton, current Admin. Started with Gulf War I and has continued apace (under same "refugee" guise). They tell Americans they're fighting them over there while they're bringing them over here, all the while telling you you are not at war with Islam and it is most definitely not a Clash of Civilizations.
I think the average person would be shocked to see where the US Govt has been relocating these people. Rural enclaves of Muslims scattered all over, especially the rural midwest and west from what I've seen.
See: Garden City, Kansas for example
It's half Mexican at this point as well.
Straight up Treason.

Anonymous bw December 10, 2015 10:03 AM  

Half Mexican now, at least, with budding Muslim contingent. Good fun.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 10:05 AM  

Big Gay Steve,

My guess is you aren't qualified to dress Homesteader.

Anonymous Homesteader December 10, 2015 10:21 AM  

On my way to work..Can one of the Ilk please quote the relevant suras for Wet Dick? Thanks...

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 10:22 AM  

@27

There's no way that Australia has anywhere near 200 million guns in a country with only 23 million people. That would put them far past the US in terms of per-capita gun ownership.

Blogger luagha December 10, 2015 10:37 AM  

@22 Why tear down all the Saudi mosques? It's easier to leave them up so you know where to search for the illegal weapons and bombs.

OpenID denektenorsk December 10, 2015 10:37 AM  

House arrest? Oh noes... Are they chained to a piece of furniture and not allowed to communicate with others in any fashion? How exactly is this a deterrent? If anything I'd imagine some will be encouraged to step up their game before they have any real punitive action against them.

Blogger CM December 10, 2015 10:41 AM  

Who are long time French citizens at this point. Time to go back.

You know the irony you felt when every Pro-Immigration guy was claiming the Paris attack was by a Belgium Citizen and NOT a Syrian Refugee?

Blogger Krul December 10, 2015 10:42 AM  

"You will need to change the Constitution first. And that won't happen."

BWAAAAAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 10, 2015 10:45 AM  

Big Gay Steve,My guess is you aren't qualified to dress Homesteader.

After the Paris attack I wore one of my anti moslem t shirts and an ex told me you can't wear white after labor day.

Do you know why moslems behead gays and mutilate little girls genitals?

One day Moo Ham Mad's oldest wife (youngest was 6) hit puberty and he realized the gays were right about his Peener being smaller than what is now cut off little girls.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 10:48 AM  

Big Gay Steve,

Who helped you put that shirt on? Attendants? Caretakers?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 10:51 AM  

@8

citizen or not, support support[sic] for repatriation won't matter. You will need to change the Constitution first


Maybe I'm insane, but how exactly would we need to change the constitution before repatriating noncitizens? Citizens, yes. The legal ability to repatriate citizens would upend the concept of 'citizen'. But what would we have to change to expel noncitizens?

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 10:58 AM  

We have a handful of Arab Muslims in my area, mainly professional types. The invasion has been by the Somali Muslims they "refugeed" in to work at the chicken plants after the Mexicans figured out that fat white girls were a better source of income.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 11:00 AM  

Anyone residing in the U.S. Is covered by the constitution. Additionally, there are issues of dual citizenship. Also, what constitutes an "enemy"? Also, Vox Day didn't say "non citizen".

Anonymous BGS December 10, 2015 11:03 AM  

Wet Duck, did a gay Hispanic peds nurse do too good a job changing your diaper?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 11:04 AM  

@40

Correct, he didn't. But the President of the US has the literal legal power to expel any noncitizen foreign nationals at his discretion, including (as Carter did) on the basis of national origin, and Congress has the literal legal power to expel noncitizen legal residents.

Actual citizens are a legal part of the body politic, and cannot be so expelled without due process (which would involve revocation of citizenship). But that's irrelevant. You, not VD, made the argument that noncitizens have a Constitutional right to remain in the US. That is flatly untrue.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 11:08 AM  

@40

As far as "enemy" is concerned, VD is defining it as anyone who wants to upend Western civilization and replace it with something completely incompatible with its basic foundations, such as freedom of religion and speech.

While moderate Muslims do exist, moderate sects of Islam are in short supply. So the more pious a Muslim is, the more likely they are to want to upend the Constitution and replace it with sharia law. And nonreligious people are not actually Muslim in any meaningful sense of the word.

So in this context, he's defining "enemy" as religious Muslims.

Blogger LonestarWhacko December 10, 2015 11:09 AM  

Exactly who is wet duck?

Blogger VD December 10, 2015 11:10 AM  

You will need to change the Constitution first.

No, we don't. We're going to do the same thing your side does and ignore it.

Blogger Raziel Walker December 10, 2015 11:10 AM  

Is there anything wrong with stashing weapons in mosques? pro-gun much?
It's not as if they will every outnumber you if you have any say in it.

Blogger Sherrie December 10, 2015 11:10 AM  

We need an end to birthright citizenship. A retroactive end to birthright citizenship would be even better. Ideally, it would apply to the children of not only illegals, but "refugees" and citizenship-tourists too. Harsh or not, that would solve a lot of our problems.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 11:13 AM  

@46

I don't actually care if people stash guns in pre-schools so long as they are stored so that the kiddies don't get into any accidents. The cause for concern is why are they storing guns there, not the fact that they are buying them or stashing them. Churches have been used as arsenals before, so it's no big deal to me.

I have no doubt that moderate Muslims, to the extent that they exist, are probably buying guns as well, whether to defend themselves from "backlash" or from their more pious cousins.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 11:15 AM  

@40 Anyone who claims dual citizenship should automatically lose their US citizenship.

@47 Ideally we would retroactively end birthright citizenship to anyone whose paternal line was not in the US in 1800.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 11:19 AM  

@49

That might be a problem for me; my family's records for my father's side don't go back any further than the 1870s.

Blogger Alexander December 10, 2015 11:29 AM  

@49

That would suck hard for me but America would very likely be better off. I don't know exactly what year the 'sweet spot' is between more Anglo-Saxons post-1800 with the burden of more non Anglo-Saxons, but you're definitely better off erring on the side of caution.

Blogger Sherrie December 10, 2015 11:29 AM  

Anyone who claims dual citizenship should automatically lose their US citizenship.
Yes. And just because someone is willing to relinquish their other citizenship, it should not mean that we automatically accept them. ("Oh hey, you're willing to give up your Mexican citizenship. Welcome, and here's your welfare goodies!")

Ideally we would retroactively end birthright citizenship to anyone whose paternal line was not in the US in 1800. Do you mean birthright citizenship for children of those here illegally? Or for everyone?

As far as a cutoff date, 1965 would be better.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 11:33 AM  

@50 We don't care.

Blogger Alexander December 10, 2015 11:33 AM  

@65

No, 1965 doesn't work. Because by 1965 the population had already reached a point where it was led by or willing to accept the catastrophe of 1965.

1965 was the date the ugly rash appeared - it wasn't the day the patient became ill.

Much like how 1860 wasn't the date where it became unacceptable to consider states to be voluntary members of a union, even though that's when the issue came to war. The rot had already set in.

Blogger pyrrhus December 10, 2015 11:35 AM  

One thing you can count on is that these 3d world undesirables will NOT be relocated into any areas occupied by wealthy liberals...

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 11:35 AM  

@52 The problem started in the 1840's. So, I will compromise and use 1835 instead.
Basically anyone not descended from the British Protestants who founded this nation should be shown the door.

Blogger S1AL December 10, 2015 11:43 AM  

Fairly certain that about 75% of the non-birthright citizens couldn't even establish that their paternal line was here at that time (I can, but only because of recently discovered family records).

Blogger CM December 10, 2015 11:45 AM  

Basically anyone not descended from the British Protestants who founded this nation should be shown the door.

How many here actually fit that criteria? And what about Catholic Maryland?

Blogger S1AL December 10, 2015 11:47 AM  

Let's not forget the Cajuns, or the Hessians, or Amerindians, or Louisiana French, or...

Blogger Sherrie December 10, 2015 11:47 AM  

Basically anyone not descended from the British Protestants who founded this nation should be shown the door.

This is giving up too much. Not only do you lose too many fine, hard-working Americans, you're giving up armies of people who'd otherwise rally to the cause.

I'm one of four Polish Catholic Gen-X kids raised by idiotic boomers. We're on your side. Our kids are on your side. But our great-grandparents came from Poland in the early 1900s. No welfare, just high IQs and hard work.

You want us on your side, not fighting against you.

Anonymous A Visitor December 10, 2015 11:50 AM  

3 mosques down, 334 war grade weapons found, 223 arrest = winning!

@4 They have one as far as I know. Those AKs probably made a short jaunt up from Libya.

@5 I echo @7's comments. They may be there for future use. Alternatively they could be in use already and they fill those cars to capacity.

@8 Ready to be stomped (at least on the non-citizen bit)?

Let's see Nationality Act of 1952; Carter requiring all Iranians on F-1 visas to report to an immigration office, later deporting 11,000, and then later banning all Iranians from the US save for exceptional circumstances; Chinese exclusionary act; Banning Mormons from entering the US until the 1920's.

@15 They're one 1% of the country's population. Hopefully that'll steadily decrease as they deport or convert to Catholicism.

@26 Yes! What people like Ze Wet Duck do not understand is that the day after the Paris attacks there were a grand total of 30 (yes 30) Muslims condemning the attacks.

@27 Glad to see our Aussies cousins still have theirs. Also, said this before at AlphaGame, but love your name!

@40 Source?

@44 Hmm...Vox, shall the VFM go on their second sanctioned mission?

@45 To quote Kelso, burned!

@47 Little steps. Start with birthright.

@49 Brah, my dad's mom's side made it just in time for the War of 1812. Srlsy, do not want to go back to France, Switzerland, or Sweden. Screw that noise.

@56 Hell. Latest my family got here was 1850.

Blogger Alexander December 10, 2015 11:53 AM  

You're missing the point.

Chris Mallory is the final solution. And it's a solution that would, in all likelihood, lead to a country that people who qualify would choose to live in and people who didn't would cry about immigration reform.

Either openly support gun rights, defend American freedom, defend Christianity, oppose immigration and the demographic destruction of America... or allow things to degenerate to the point where those who qualify under the Chris Mallory definition decide to act.

I have no qualms stating outright that in a sane society I - as the child of English immigrants - should not have the right to vote. Not only do I accept that the system that allows me to vote for gun rights and immigration controls also allows scores more muds to vote the opposite and so counterproductive to my own desires; I realize that given enough stress it won't be enough that I'm Anglo, I'll be the wrong type of Anglo, the newbie without a history of familial blood spilled on behalf of the nation I claim.

If you're worrying about how the Chris Mallorys would go about tracking your paternal lineage or whether there will be exceptions for Maryland or pre-1840 Spaniards in Texas or what have you, you're worrying about the train.

Anonymous kfg December 10, 2015 11:54 AM  

@56: Two signers of the Declaration of Independence were of Dutch descent, and one was Irish Catholic.

Blogger Steffen December 10, 2015 12:01 PM  

Chris Mallory, your cutoff could use some improvement. Does your well-established family line have a history of military service, strong nuclear families, minimal criminal activity and productive employment and entrepreneurship? Mine does. And we're mostly Freisian Dutch who immigrated around the WII era.

Anonymous Susan December 10, 2015 12:04 PM  

Americans and Brits tend to mock the French for their surrender technique, but they would do well to remember that their ancestors chopped off the heads of the aristocracy and their monarchs of the day.

The muslims/immigrants just haven't hit the right button yet to set off the native population.

Blogger Sherrie December 10, 2015 12:10 PM  

Either openly support gun rights, defend American freedom, defend Christianity, oppose immigration and the demographic destruction of America... or allow things to degenerate to the point where those who qualify under the Chris Mallory definition decide to act.

Yes. But realistically, how many English descendants are there in the U.S.A.? Can I act, too, even if I descend from Polish Catholics? BTW, Poland is one of the few countries taking a hard stand against the Moslem invasion. Poles are tough people, sadly much tougher than those in England right now, who are rolling over for these invaders.

Does your well-established family line have a history of military service, strong nuclear families, minimal criminal activity and productive employment and entrepreneurship?
Exactly. You want people like this on your side.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 10, 2015 12:11 PM  

@27 "Is Gun Control Even Possible in the U.S.?"

Of course it is. Despite what we think of the current situation right now all it really takes is the crushing of the will to resist... and that's exactly why the collectivists push their worldview: to make it seem like you are utterly alone compared to "the group" (whether university, government, media, etc). -- This is also the reason that Trump is such a surprise to them: he's giving voice to the frustrations that "the silent majority" have experienced in the past few decades.

There is, also to consider, the fact that we already do confiscate guns: namely from felons. A lot of people claim that this is kosher because "it's part of the punishment" without realizing that as ex post facto law, even by the severely weakened Supreme Court definition (increasing of penalty after the fact), the law is invalid by the Constitution. Also, that "gun free zones" are considered at all legitimate, especially on federal properties where the 2nd amendment should unambiguously apply is another point supporting the proposition.

Also, consider that they could lay the legal framework to make gun ownership illegal and then selectively enforce it, trying to slowly and progressively see to its implementation. They could, for example, make it so there are no qualifying Obamacare plans and make the failure to have coverage a felony, in one fell swoop making everyone a felon -- now it would obviously be a "unfortunate mixup" and they'd probably have some sort of waiver that, in the fine print, waives both your 2nd Amendment [legal] rights as well as 6th Amendment jury trial rights... after which they could "take care of" squeaky-wheels at their leisure.

Blogger skiballa December 10, 2015 12:15 PM  

As amusing as it is to think about, that 1800 cutoff really isn't the best idea.

The Puritans I'm descended from may have been something worthwhile before they turned away from God, but I'm not sure I want them to be that well represented.

But, getting rid of my ex-wife is a strong selling point.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 10, 2015 12:18 PM  

@60 You want us on your side, not fighting against you.

That's what I keep telling them about the ridiculous "life begins at fertilization even if it has trisomy 21, profound retardation or winds up anencephalic" dogma.  Now that the institutions are closed, you can't stick families with having to care for such extreme burdens.  There's even a Constitutional argument against "pro-life" for such:  they will be left out of our posterity.

They don't care.  They'd rather score rhetorical points against leftoids who don't care either.  Worst of all, to the extent that "exceptional children" (god, what a hideous euphemism!) make families fall apart under the stress, such insistence is anti-family.

I don't expect to convert anyone here, just let everyone know that the "other side" isn't.  What I hope to achieve is a softening of the tone so we can eventually agree to disagree and leave each other alone after achieving victory over the forces of socialist injustice.

@7 It occurs to me that patriots could also prep mosques for the invaders, if you know what I mean.  A careful job would leave no traces, including erasure of the security camera recordings.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 12:34 PM  

@64

Does your well-established family line have a history of military service, strong nuclear families, minimal criminal activity and productive employment and entrepreneurship?

I know of at least 5 members of my family who have served in the US military, two who have served in law enforcement, and yes to the rest of it. I had my first job on the family ranch at the age of 15.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 10, 2015 12:40 PM  

@54 "Much like how 1860 wasn't the date where it became unacceptable to consider states to be voluntary members of a union, even though that's when the issue came to war."

What's really interesting about the aftermath of that little fiasco is that none of the Confederate leadership was charged with Treason. I believe that the reason for this is because (a) the justification for the Civil War was that States could not voluntarily leave, (b) the Constitution defines Treason as making war on the States, and (c) if a is true then the Union's attacking of the Confederacy is, by definition, Treason... if a is false, then the justification for the war is undermined and the "civil war" was really a war to subjugate sovereign foreign states. -- Rather a nice lose-lose proposition for FedGov, so they decided to sweep those questions under the rug and let the Civil War be fait acompli.

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 12:46 PM  

A Mr. Rational
It always comes back to killing babies for you, doesn't it? You're not tough, and decisive, and a Real Man unless you advocate killing babies.
Guess what, shitstain, you aren't a real man anyways. you're a fucking gamma cocksocket desperately trying to be masculine and rational. You're neither and you know it.
God, what a pathetic wannabe.

Keep pulling that pud, sport. Eventually some woman is bound to want it.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 10, 2015 12:47 PM  

@71

The South surrendered. I thought it was a nice way of actually ending the war and reducing the chance of future bloodshed.

Blogger Michelle *VFM #311* December 10, 2015 12:48 PM  

According to Drudge the congress critters have added an amendment to a nuclear safety bill that would "prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion" and are getting ready to vote on it now.

Blogger Michelle *VFM #311* December 10, 2015 12:49 PM  

According to Drudge the congress critters have added an amendment to a nuclear safety bill that would "prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion" and are getting ready to vote on it now.

Blogger Alexander December 10, 2015 1:02 PM  

@75 I smell another Trump "ceiling" about to be hit.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 1:04 PM  

"No, we don't. We're going to do the same thing your side does and ignore it."

I don't know who the "we" is in your comment, but that doesn't mean it still isn't funny.

Blogger Alexander December 10, 2015 1:17 PM  

The Constitution means exactly what the people in power want it to mean.

It's the other side that decided we live in a Humpty Dumpty Democracy. All we have to do is swap positions.

Anonymous WillBest December 10, 2015 1:27 PM  

Not really understanding this trace the father's family line nonsense. Between the ones that didn't really care, and those that didn't want to leave the crown, the majority of the country sat the country's founding out. Why are they getting a pass?

Plus plenty of other ethnic groups did their fair share of injun clearing. And the US government illegally purchased the land others were minding their own business on.

Land is held by those willing to fight and die for it. Everything else from the constitutional legal justifications, to historical claims, etc. That is all just posturing.

The French are doing what they need to stay French. The Americans don't even know what they are anymore.

Blogger rumpole5 December 10, 2015 1:33 PM  

My German ancestors came to the British colonies in the early 1700s. Do I have to leave ?

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 1:43 PM  

My Irish Catholic great-great-great-grandfather came to this country in 1796, fleeing a death sentence handed out in absentia for his role int he Irish Uprising of 1793. He was smuggled out in a fish barrel.
Fucking Prots think they're special.
Do I count?

Blogger rumpole5 December 10, 2015 1:45 PM  

Does it make any difference that my German American ancestor, Frederick Bouroughf, fought for the USA in the war of 1812, that my great great grandfather, Baker lost a leg fighting for the USA in the civil war, joined by two other great uncles who also fought for the USA with Sherman, and my great uncle fought for the USA world war 1. All of these men were German Americans. Am I American enough to stay?

Blogger dh December 10, 2015 1:50 PM  

Look on the Irish thing, whatever you think, the Irish built something. They worked. They were the grist in the mill.

Where's the Muslim Notre de Dame?

Anonymous an agrarian with connections December 10, 2015 1:53 PM  

The weapons are there in the US mosques.

Without revealing my source, I happen to know that fire inspector was told he could not enter one particular room in a mosque, here in the mid-west, while doing fire safety inspections.

He want back a couple of days later, and demanded to see that room, so he could complete his fire safety inspection papers. A young member of the mosque let him in, and the room was lined, upper and lower racks of AR's and AKs all the way around the room with boxs of ammo stacked in the middle of the room.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 10, 2015 1:57 PM  

@56

Fuck you. I've had family members fight in every war since we emigrated to this country during the famine and my great uncle was killed in the Philippines. The only way your showing my family the door is in body bags and I'm gonna take fucks like you with me.

Blogger kennymac December 10, 2015 1:58 PM  

Judging from the replies to Chris Mallory, there must be a lot of new people here. He spouts off his 1800s nonsense on just about every thread. He's like Tad, best to just ignore him.

Blogger dh December 10, 2015 1:59 PM  

C.I.

Great, you've shown yourself to be overly disposed to emotional outburst and familially prone to war making.

That's a winning argument.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 2:05 PM  

@66 "how many English descendants are there in the U.S.A.? "

More than you think. The Germans get the play as the biggest group, but only because the British are broken up into the English, Lowland Scots, Welsh and as we in Greater Appalachia call ourselves AMERICAN.

@82 "Baker lost a leg fighting for the USA in the civil war, joined by two other great uncles who also fought for the USA with Sherman,"

That right there should be enough to have you deported.

To all the others, if you have to ask, you probably aren't really an American, but still give homage to the teeming shores of Europe. Good Riddance.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 10, 2015 2:07 PM  

@86 Just because you are a parasite upon the nation my ancestors founded does not make my argument nonsense. Immigrants have destroyed what promised to be a great nation.

Blogger skiballa December 10, 2015 2:09 PM  

@86

kennymac,
Meh, I generally disregard his plan, but, if it where up to me, I'd want to keep the folks around saying "Fuck you, make me".

Anonymous rienzi December 10, 2015 2:11 PM  

I wonder if Vox and John Red Eagle might consider the year of 1606 as being appropriate for having to leave the country, if your ancestors were not here by then?

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 10, 2015 2:12 PM  

@88

I'm certainly not asking, I'm fucking telling you that if the government, or anyone else tries to take what is mine by birthright, that you will be on the wrong end of my rifle.

@89

So Chris, if such a measure did pass and you did try to remove people who you think are parasites you do know that the men attempting to enforce it would be dead men walking don't you? Knowing that, would you even have the fortitude to volunteer for such a role? Or do you expect others to die for you?

Anonymous ThirdMonkey VFM #337 December 10, 2015 2:14 PM  

For those pissed at Chris Mallory...

the train is fine.

Blogger skiballa December 10, 2015 2:16 PM  

@91

Cogitans, he seems to keep overlooking the fact that a significant portion of those left under his plan would be descendants of those hated Puritan Yankees.

Anonymous rienzi December 10, 2015 2:19 PM  

I wonder if Vox and John Red Eagle might consider the year of 1564 as being appropriate for having to leave the country, if your ancestors were not here by then?

Blogger S1AL December 10, 2015 2:19 PM  

Someone with the family name "Mallory" complaining about non-British immigrants is just all kinds of funny.

Blogger kennymac December 10, 2015 2:20 PM  

Aw Chrissy, ain't you cute!

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 10, 2015 2:26 PM  

@92
Being pissed at Mallory because he questioned my, and others, American bona fides and stated I, and others like me, need to GTFO because of who I am descended from and my non-protestant background in no way indicates that I think there isn't a larger problem in America.

@93
True, though I would still like him to go on record and put say he would put his money where his mouth is, or is he going to evade and accuse others calling him the idiot that he is moderates who are shooting at their own side.

Anonymous Homesteader December 10, 2015 2:52 PM  

Lunchtime.
It's Sura 9:5, the Verse of the Sword:

"9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them..."

You were saying, Moist Mallard?


Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:02 PM  

@44 LonestarWhacko

Exactly who is wet duck?
---

I thought Wet Duck was a seagull, but he posted multiple times.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:03 PM  

@47 Sherrie

We need an end to birthright citizenship. A retroactive end to birthright citizenship would be even better. Ideally, it would apply to the children of not only illegals, but "refugees" and citizenship-tourists too. Harsh or not, that would solve a lot of our problems.
---

+bunches

Anonymous ThirdMonkey VFM #337 December 10, 2015 3:05 PM  

@ 97
Meh, my ancestors, both Catholic and Protestant, free and indentured, from all parts of Euorope, from as early as 1656 to the late 19th century, and fought in almost every conflict from the French and Indian war to WWII are important. But they are dead and don't matter. What matters now is the answer to one question: are you an American Nationalist or a Multicultural Globalist?

We don't care. Now pick up your .45 and get back to harvesting skulls for the Supreme Dark Lord.




Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:10 PM  

@61 A Visitor

3 mosques down, 334 war grade weapons found, 223 arrest = winning!
---

I imagine a Starcraft map with 1000s of islamic Zerg bases gobbling up all resources in their areas. It's gonna take more than 3. 3 is like the start of the game.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:20 PM  

@74 Michelle *VFM #311*

According to Drudge the congress critters have added an amendment to a nuclear safety bill that would "prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion" and are getting ready to vote on it now.
---

I already got on that one with my 2 senators office, not that it will do much good.

Why again did we sweep Republicans into office the last 2 off elections??

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 10, 2015 3:23 PM  

@101

Don't worry my beef with Mallory doesn't blind me to dangers the globalists pose to America.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:24 PM  

@84 an agrarian with connections

He want back a couple of days later, and demanded to see that room, so he could complete his fire safety inspection papers. A young member of the mosque let him in, and the room was lined, upper and lower racks of AR's and AKs all the way around the room with boxs of ammo stacked in the middle of the room.
---

He should have alerted the whole town there was a free gun for everyone and put the address.

Anonymous A Visitor December 10, 2015 3:25 PM  

@102 Man...that brings me back to grade school/high school! Better spin up some Wraiths and get those SCVs mining.

@103 (based off of 74) I looked up the bill in question they attached it to, it's been sitting around since March. It'll probably be one of the roughly 90% of bills that die before being voted on.

Blogger Scott Rassbach December 10, 2015 3:29 PM  

I've got a Native American ancestor. Can I stay?

Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:29 PM  

My cousins grandma was a Cherokee princess, can I stay?

Blogger Were-Puppy December 10, 2015 3:31 PM  

If we had DNA tests, I wonder how many are related to Magic Johnson?

Blogger Scott Rassbach December 10, 2015 3:38 PM  

If I have Genghis Khan's DNA, can I get dual citizenship with Mongolia?

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 10, 2015 4:01 PM  

@72 It always comes back to killing babies for you, doesn't it?

First the lesser point.  I'm going to let you in on a secret:  it's not a baby.  For that matter, this is not a baby either.  It looks like one, but there's literally nothing behind those eyes except a sac of fluid.  There is no visual cortex taking signals from the optic nerves.  A baby is a future member of human society and contributor to posterity; that thing is a sad simulacrum, a doll made of human flesh.  It's literally a monster.

Now the greater point:  it always comes back to personal autonomy, those closest to and most affected by a problem having the natural right to decide how to deal with it.  You freak out over this to the point that you want to kill me.  All I want is to be left alone, which is why I'm fighting SJWs (I'm about to sue some of them, AAMOF).  It's hard to work on getting rid of the globalists and Marxists if I've got to worry about a knife in the back from you.

My Irish Catholic great-great-great-grandfather came to this country in 1796, fleeing a death sentence handed out in absentia

So you just want to be the one handing the sentences out.  You exemplify the Papists who are questionably American, both in orientation and allegiance.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to do some axe-swinging and then clean my guns.

Anonymous Wet duck December 10, 2015 4:17 PM  

Mallory shows why zoo keepers don't put sharp objects in the Monkey House.

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 4:19 PM  

All I want is to be left alone, which is why I'm fighting SJWs

No, you want to declare my daughter an unperson and have the legal right to have her killed.

Because you are a worthless waste of carbon.

Your unmerited self-regard is exceeded only by the worthlessness of your entire existence. If unproductive eearters need to be eliminated, we'll start with you, because you demonstrate with every comment you are too useless to live, to stupid to learn and too arrogant to shut up.

Blogger Lovekraft December 10, 2015 4:29 PM  

Waiting for the proposal to charge the saudis for the expenses of cleaning up their jihadist mess. Billions at least.

Anonymous kfg December 10, 2015 4:48 PM  

@101: ". . . are you an American Nationalist or a Multicultural Globalist?"

I am a Green Mountain Boy first. Perhaps that doesn't meet your standard, but as long as you otherwise leave me alone I'll be shooting in the same direction you are.

Blogger luagha December 10, 2015 5:36 PM  

My parents came here in the late 1960's; my father to work for McDonnell Douglas in their research laboratories. He has a plaque for his invention of photoluminescent temperature-sensitive paint used in cooking the carbon-fiber in airplane wings indicating that the first year his invention was put into effect, it saved the US 35 million collars, and countless millions of dollars every year thereafter. Do I get to stay?

(This, by the way, is how you can tell I'm Jewish. Everyone else's story has to do with military service, but mine has to do with saving the host country money.)

Blogger CM December 10, 2015 5:47 PM  

Lol

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 10, 2015 6:08 PM  

@113 That's a lie and you know it.  You cannot quote me to anything like that.

You owe me an apology.

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 6:30 PM  

That's what I keep telling them about the ridiculous "life begins at fertilization even if it has trisomy 21, profound retardation or winds up anencephalic" dogma. Now that the institutions are closed, you can't stick families with having to care for such extreme burdens. There's even a Constitutional argument against "pro-life" for such: they will be left out of our posterity.

You want her declared unperson, and therefore outside the protections of the law.

You owe me an apology.
But first you will blow me.

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 6:39 PM  

Now that the institutions are closed, you can't stick families with having to care for such extreme burdens.

Blogger Danby December 10, 2015 6:41 PM  

I repeat, too useless to live, to stupid to learn and too arrogant to shut up.

Blogger Irene W December 10, 2015 11:48 PM  

Danby, she's just lovely. And she looks well-loved and happy.

If that little girl were born into some other family, she might not be as well loved. Some people figure, that being the case, the kindest thing to do is bend the law on infanticide, and let families decide whether to keep "it."
I hate that human beings can be thought of as "it"s. There's a lot of that going around.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 11, 2015 12:45 AM  

The Three Laws are in evidence here:

@113 you want to declare my daughter an unperson and have the legal right to have her killed.

SJWs Always Lie (challenged to provide a reference, he deflected).

@119 first you will blow me.

SJWs Always Double Down.

@113 you are a worthless waste of carbon.

SJWs Always Project.

Danby is also in violation of Rules 2 and 5, at the very least.  I call for sanctions.

@120 You weren't stuck, you volunteered.  You are so deeply entrenched in your own conceptual framework that you can't (or more likely, refuse to) grasp anything even slightly at odds with it.  Hold a mirror up to today's Marxist, and you have Danby:  reflected across the ideological line, but everything is otherwise the same!

Blogger Irene W December 11, 2015 1:30 AM  

Mr. Rational, you mentioned something about a desire to "soften the tone?" .....yes?

Click on the man's baby picture, say something like, "dang, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used the word monster. I'd be pissed, too. You were being a protective dad, and I was responding by being a..."....hmmmm...."an ass-hat."

Anonymous Laz December 11, 2015 1:55 AM  

@94. rienzi

1564 is nothing. First ancestor to hit the shore was in 1560... and I'm literally related to half of England and Ireland.

Blogger Danby December 11, 2015 3:50 AM  

Frankly, Mr Irrational, you have demonstrated with every post your generic, classically mid-wit unearned self-regard and inability to understand what's being said by your betters. I reserve politeness for humans, idiot drooling moral monsters get the back of my hand.

You have no idea of what you're talking about, you have no idea how normal humans might think, you're so sure of your mental and moral superiority that you are incapable of seeing what's in front of your face.

I answered your question. Granted, you don't understand my answer, but that's to be expected. It involves parsing the moral content of your own statements, which is obviously well beyond your capacity. You accuse me of the worst crime you can think of, which is to be a Leftist.

I can think of a worse one.

If you can't figure out what you said that's insulting, dangerous, evil, stupid and wrong, perhaps that's because you're suffering a lead deficiency. I recommend you give yourself a 9m injection, sub-cranial.

Anonymous 0007 December 11, 2015 8:11 AM  

My people apparently didn't show up until the mid 17th century. And that was because we kept making bad religious decision all the way from the Alsace-Lorraine region, across the Neatherlands, through France, over to Great Britain and finally floating over to New Amsterdam. If you go east to west across upstate New York, the family name is on the map about every 50 miles or so.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 11, 2015 12:13 PM  

@127 Click on the man's baby picture

It is not legal to kill the kid in Danby's picture.  NOBODY has called for it to be.  When Danby claims anyone wants to do that, he is LYING.  He is deliberately conflating an unviable fetus with a born child.  He's still not said anything so insane as "babies in Petri dishes", but he's not all that far off.

I shouldn't have used the word monster.

If you paid attention you would realize that I was referring to this, which is exactly what I said it is.  It proves that human flesh alone does not a human being make.

Know what would have prevented that microcephaly?  Fertilizing eggs in Petri dishes and doing PIGD to select only the ones not carrying any genes for microcephaly.  That couple could have had healthy children who themselves would be free of the worry of having a microcephalic baby.  Sadly, "pro-lifers" call this "murder" because the other fertilized eggs are thrown out.

@129 your generic, classically mid-wit unearned self-regard and inability to understand what's being said by your betters.

Moral posturing, check.

You accuse me of the worst crime you can think of, which is to be a Leftist.

No, Danby.  You exhibit every despicable trait of SJWs, just with the opposite politics.  You're below mid-wit and can't get the irony.

If you can't figure out what you said that's insulting, dangerous, evil, stupid and wrong

If you can't figure out why your hysteria over other people's use of abortion, embryo selection, and everything else to do what human societies have had to do from time immemorial—cut the burden of birth defects to a manageable level—is insulting, dangerous to civilization, stupid, wrong and (yes) evil—if you can't figure out what's wrong with your own 42-years-old moral panic—there is no saving you.  But you make a good rhetorical foil.

that's because you're suffering a lead deficiency. I recommend you give yourself a 9m injection, sub-cranial.

That is pure SJW too.  "Go kill yourself, white man."

Meanwhile, Black women obtain 72% of the abortions in Mississippi.  It's clear who's on the side of American (white) society, and who isn't.  Margaret Sanger was right.

Blogger Sevron December 11, 2015 1:24 PM  

Mr. Rational minus the verbal diarrhea he simply cannot seem to get under control:

"Murder is like totally OK you guys if it would really inconvenience you not to do it."

Blogger The Rev December 11, 2015 2:15 PM  

@Mr. Rational

"I'm not saying that YOU should murder helpless innocents. I'm just saying that you shouldn't defend them when OTHER PEOPLE want to kill them. The fact that you can't make that distinction shows your ignorance."

Look, I get the pro-abortion arguments. I really do. Can you get that the pro-lifers believe you are talking about murdering children - without sperging out?

Anonymous Discard December 11, 2015 5:58 PM  

A few years ago, Mr Rational insisted that Georgetown University had no right to not offer birth control to students. Sandra Fluke, I believe, was the plaintiff's name, but I don't recall what blog it was. Anyway, forcing a Catholic institution to pay for birth control is not asking to be left alone.

OpenID pancakeloach December 11, 2015 6:48 PM  

Hmmm. I decided to google microcephaly to find out what exactly Mr. Rational was declaring unhuman, and lo and behold, there are multiple causes of microcephaly that would not be affected in the slightest by IVF and gene testing.

Mr Rational, with every post you are merely providing more and more evidence that you are morally retarded. Given the horrors that moral retards such as yourself have historically committed in the name of eugenics, you should really be a bit more circumspect about claiming that retardation is a sufficient reason to declare a member of the species "not human." Someone might take you up on that in a way you might find personally inconvenient.

Blogger Irene W December 11, 2015 8:35 PM  

Dear Mr. Rational : @131 @127 @71: and I quote: "I don't expect to convert anyone here, just let everyone know that the "other side" isn't. What I hope to achieve is a softening of the tone..."

Feelz-fail, as in, I'm just not feelin' it yet; but do keep trying. Yes, it's important not to let one's own emotions paralyze one's reason; however, an attempt to de-escalate an emotionally charged situation with others requires at least an attempt to understand their emotions, and to make known the fact that you are trying to, even if you see no logic in their words.

I know going all "Velveteen Rabbit" won't come naturally to you, but you'll find the skill to be useful in pursuit of that noble goal of tone-softening.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 12, 2015 5:28 AM  

@133 You can't "murder helpless innocents" who aren't there.  The iconic Petri dish full of blastocysts has exactly ZERO "innocents" in it:  there is nobody there yet to be innocent of anything, any more than a tree or a rock can be.  Assuming they are implanted and progress normally, there won't be any signs of consciousness until 30 weeks of gestation.  THAT is the first time you can legitimately talk about "innocent", "hopeless condemned sinner", or "original partier in the hot tub".

Can you get that the pro-lifers believe you are talking about murdering children

I know what they believe; you can't read the news in the USA and not know it.  I believe they are deluded.  I KNOW they want to poke their noses into other people's extremely intimate and personal decisions, and that a number of them have used murder to achieve their goals.  I also know that the pharmaceutical ship has sailed on this issue and they can achieve nothing except a repeat of the horrific situation in El Salvador.

I know that abortion has been used to keep "social conservatives" on the Republican plantation for 4 decades and counting, where they have been thoroughly and shamelessly cucked.  Can you deny that?  I'm calling for them to see through the nonsense and put the national question first, because as long as White America is divided between "pro-life" and "personal decisions are personal" as it's been since 1973 we can't save ourselves.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 12, 2015 5:31 AM  

@134 A half-truth is a whole lie.  The "birth control" in that case was a specific formulation which ameliorated her friend's ovarian disease.  It was without question a necessary medical treatment regardless of whether it also provided birth control.  Since the school was accepting fees to provide medical care it was obligated to provide the proper and necessary treatment for that disease, end of story.

We've already seen a fatal delay in chemotherapy because the the treatment is also abortifacient.  The so-called "baby" (13 weeks, months short of viability) died too.  And you want to bring this to the USA to put your feelz ahead of other people's lives?  You heartless bastard.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 12, 2015 5:40 AM  

@136 When the exact criticisms you use against the left are applicable to you, the more the uncommitted seem likely to say "a pox on both their houses".  I want to win, and that means discarding non-essentials.  Right now the national question is the only question that matters.

Blogger The Rev December 12, 2015 11:07 AM  

@137

"You can't "murder helpless innocents" who aren't there."

Okay, so what I'm hearing is "no" - no, you can't hear the pro-life position without spering out. Now that I know it's a reflexive compulsion, I won't poke it in the future. Cheers!

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 12, 2015 3:10 PM  

@140 What I'm hearing is "no"—no, you can't hear anything contrary to your orthodoxy without going "blasphemer!"  Frankly, if you did a proper survey you'd find that a large majority of Americans do not accept the notion that a ball of cells in a Petri dish is a baby.  YOU ARE THE EXTREMIST, not me.

State legislatures have already made major inroads against abortion rights, so that pendulum is now centered.  I'm hoping that I do not see another backlash cycle, because this one has been ugly and the LAST thing I want to do is empower the left again.

Anonymous Discard December 13, 2015 4:42 AM  

138. Mr Rational: I tell no lies. Did Sandra Fluke have this ovarian disease? No. Her beef was that birth control cost her $1000 a year and she wanted somebody else to pay for it. She should not have applied to a Catholic institution if that's how she felt. Your view was that they owed it to her regardless of the fact that she knew their position before she went there, that her hot pussy outweighed the school's rights of contract.

My point is that you are something of an unhinged crusader on this question, that you do not merely ask to be left alone. Your unhingedness is further demonstrated by your calling me a heartless bastard. When have I ever argued against adults using birth control? I only argue against using the power of the state to force a Catholic school to provide it for some cunt.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 13, 2015 9:57 AM  

@142 I tell no lies.

You just made up several assertions out of whole cloth.

Did Sandra Fluke have this ovarian disease? No.

Her testimony referred to two people who did.  I linked this testimony in @138 so you have no excuse for ignorance.

Her beef was that birth control cost her $1000 a year

Fluke never specifically referred to her own costs.  This is all at the link... that you so obviously have not read, could not understand, or just replaced with your narrative.  In other words, you lied.  You have lots of company in your echo chamber, but it's still a lie.

She should not have applied to a Catholic institution if that's how she felt.

1.  It is both ironic and sick that an institution that is so concerned about women making babies would twist its definition of "health care" so as to place them at risk of losing their ovaries to a highly treatable disease.

2.  Law students are not worshippers joining a church, they are customers paying for instruction in a field of study.  When their fees include a charge for health care, they should get health care.  Georgetown has no right to force people to follow Catholic doctrine in their own private lives.  Did Georgetown expel the lesbian with polycystic disease?  No?  I rest my case.

Your view was that they owed it to her regardless of the fact that she knew their position before she went there

When you're paying fees which include health care, is it beyond ridiculous to deny coverage of medication required to keep one's body parts intact.  These diseases are not jokes.  An ex-GF of mine had to have surgery to remove a softball-sized cyst on an ovary, and a very good friend of mine had to have an emergency hysterectomy at age 32 when her endometriosis got out of control.  (She'd not been using contraception and wasn't at all opposed to having a child.)

Your unhingedness is further demonstrated by your calling me a heartless bastard.

You've already shown that you're willing to sacrifice women's ovaries for the sake of Jesuit sensibilities.  It is a very small step to denying chemotherapy "for the sake of the baby" as in my second link in @138.

I only argue against using the power of the state to force a Catholic school to provide it for some cunt.

Then let Georgetown get out of the health care business and find an insurance company to handle that detail.  The school has an out; the students don't.  The school refused to take it, proving that they WANT that dictatorial power over their female students.

The upshot of all of this:

1.  Life is complicated.
2.  Medical matters should be the domain of doctors and patients.
3.  The Narrative is always erroneous, no matter whose narrative it is.

Anonymous Discard December 15, 2015 10:43 PM  

Mr Rational: No, I did not read your whole link, and I don't need to. My time is my own. This was all over the news some years ago and I have better things to do than re-read all the details. She may not have spoken of her own expenses at your link, but she did elsewhere. She made full use her 15 minutes of fame

As you acknowledge, you believe that the customer is entitled to re-define the terms after agreeing to them. Ought Georgetown be obligated to provide abortions on demand at 8 months as well? Sex changes? Nose jobs and botox injections?
I don't care what medical procedures Georgetown declines to provide. No CPR. No aspirin if that's what they want. That is their decision. I can choose to not go there if I don't like it.

Sandra Fluke chose to go to Georgetown, knowing that it was a Catholic institution. She was admitted to the law school, so she is self-evidently not stupid or ignorant. You would sacrifice the right of contract, by which the poor can compel the rich to honor their commitments, so that some feminist bitch can keep her SJW spawning ovaries.

The right of contract, that's the real issue. I have no special regard for Jesuit sensibilities, but I have a high regard for their right to agree to what they agree to, not what somebody decides they ought to have agreed to. If medical matters ought be solely the domain of doctors and patients, let the doctors and patients sort out the payments without involving any third parties, like Georgetown U.

So buy me a new truck. I know you never agreed to, but I think I need one.

Anonymous Discard December 16, 2015 5:43 AM  

Mr Rational: Your link is to the Sandra Fluke's Congressional testimony. I did not read it because it's the sanitized bullshit version. The story was all over the internet, where she did complain about paying $1000 a year for birth control.

If you think an institution is sick, don't go there and then cry about it like a little bitch calling rape after a night of drunken sex.

Law students, like any other customers, are entitled to what they paid for, and no more. At a Catholic institution, that means no birth control. I know that. You know that. She knew that, but she chose to go there anyway. If you or she think that it's beyond ridiculous to not offer one procedure or another, don't go there. You have lots and lots of other choices, but apparently you want to have dictatorial control over what Catholics do at their own institutions.

I don't care about Jesuit sensibilities, and I don't care about your ex girlfriend, but I do care about the rights of contract. It means that I must keep my bargains with others, and that others, particularly those richer or more powerful than I, must keep their bargains with me. And yes I would be willing to sacrifice some SJW's ovaries for those rights, but there's no need to. The bitch can choose another law school.

I agree that medical matters should be left to doctors and patients, as long as the financial matters are left to them as well. If you don't want any third party involved, don't expect them to pay.

Normally, Mr Rational, you're pretty reasonable. But you are nuts about this. It's as if you thought the First Amendment was the right to birth control and the Second the right to abortion.

Anonymous Mr. Rational December 20, 2015 8:27 AM  

@145 I haven't seen anything to substantiate the specific charges you make, and you haven't cited anything in support.  You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word in this matter.  Given that there is now a several-day moderation delay on this thread it seems rather pointless to try to continue, but there's one bit of hyperbole I'm compelled to rebut:

I agree that medical matters should be left to doctors and patients, as long as the financial matters are left to them as well. If you don't want any third party involved, don't expect them to pay.

As if Georgetown students made the world they're living in!  In reality, individual insurance policies are prohibitively expensive while group rates for young, healthy populations are cheap.  Georgetown could have handed off its third-party status to an insurance company with no religious agenda; it did not.

It's as if you thought the First Amendment was the right to birth control and the Second the right to abortion.

The entire Bill of Rights is explicitly a set of zones where the government cannot go.  It makes explicit areas where minorities and individuals can tell the majority to go f**k itself because they're going to do what they believe is right and nobody has any business interfering in their private affairs even if it bugs them.  That is a GENERAL principle out of which birth control, abortion, arms, speech, the press, religion and everything else fall.

Contracts become a public concern when they're violated.  When Georgetown accepted money for health care and then denied certain types of health care because it could also do things the university didn't like, it broke its contract with the students.  Forcing Georgetown to live up to it is just and fair.

Anonymous Discard December 20, 2015 9:18 PM  

Sandra Fluke could have chosen to attend a school that handed off its medical insurance to a insurance company; she did not. She could have chosen a school that provided birth control and abortion services; she did not. She should deal with the consequences of her error, not use the power of the stare to force others to fix her self-inflicted grievances.

Georgetown did not violate a contract. You insist that your own definition of health care is the one that Georgetown must accept, but Georgetown has the right to use their own definition and tell the majority to go fuck themselves. Anyone who does not like Georgetown's definition can go to one of the hundreds of other colleges and law schools in the country. Forcing Georgetown to live up to somebody else's rules, when they have always had their own and never concealed the fact, is unjust and unfair.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts