Neal, why do you oppose welfare recipients from voting? I think it is because you see they have vested interest in getting their way, which is taken at the cost of the rest of society. How is a pregnant woman's oppinion any different? They only want to excape from the consiquences of their actions regardless of who get's screwed in the deal. So like the welfare folks, of course you won't hear many of them yelling out: "take away the money you are giving us"

Is there any difference between killing someone's offspring now or at any other point in their development? Fundamentally, once you make the choice to have sex, and development has begun, any further intervention in the matter is mearley stopping the development of that child, weather they be unborn, or 6 going on 7 years old.

You make an excellent point. They see women as a "walking life support system for a vagina"... and how is that any improvement on the "baby incubator" theory. The former, not that latter, is what turns women into objects.

If Sarah Palin started championing the Fair Tax, I imagine certain folks would see her in a more positive light...

No I don't like women. No I don't hate men. I think what would be fair is to give the men a pill so they will puke their guts out and when the time comes for the baby to be delivered turn them over and stick a two by four up their nether regions. Bet they would be a lot more careful in the future lol. As far as the bible quote goes I have heard it. If it doesn't exist my bad. I'm not a biblical expert but it seems to condone a man messing around (Abraham) then dumping his kid (also Abraham). Don't tell me that is not in the bible. Personally I blame women more. They should have enough brains to practice birth control. Can't always blame it on finances look at all the Hollywood whores dropping a load and having all the tabeloids talking about how wonderful it is. No wonder Medicaid is going broke. As for Social Security before you mention it. Social security has been bailing out the Federal Gov. since 1965.

I don't really want to respond to anything you say because you are obviously a paranoid sort.But I was wondering...how is Art Bell doing lately?

And since when has the lefty women not heard about birth control? Geez, to have an unwanted pregnancy these days you really have to be stupid. Even rape cases are given the morning after pill.

I've watched it. BUT you know who we're dealing with. In order to get a full scale investigation launched, you are going to need more than documentaries.

To think that our government is capable of cavalierly throwing away 3000 lives in the space of an hour, then committing thousands more to a war, is a bit hard to swallow.

I watched it live when that second plane hit the building. And I watched it live when those buildings went down.

I do NOT want to believe you. But if you have overwhelming proof, well that would be different. So far, I'm not seeing it.

Everyone else here has seen that same proof and I don't see anyone else being convinced either, so it's not just me.

I have given you a place to look for the evidence. I am sorry, but for you to tell me I have provided no evidence is false. Watch the documentary Loose Change Final Cut and then Fabled Enemies. There is enough information in just those two documentaries to completely destroy the official story. Like I said before the people that could reopen the investigation are just simply worried about what 9/11 being an inside job means on the larger scale. It is not a lack of evidence that scares them. It is having to stand up to the system and be THAT guy.

I can see so clearly how abortion is wrong, inhumane, and dehumanizing and I don't understanding how many of us don't. This falls in the same category as to my confusion on how a human being can kill if a fellow human being (e.g. wife, mother, friend, stranger, child) for materialism or love; I will never comprehend how a person can do that.
btw, I am pro-life but I will not vote against a republican or libertarian just because they are pro-choice. I vote using multiple factors (it is a plus if the candidate is pro-life but it is not the deciding factor in my vote). I have faith that the pro-life movement will eventually win as humanity becomes more enlighten. In a way it is like slavery, many disagreed at the time with it but people were not voted into office because they were abolitionist, they were voted because they were reasonable and logical beings. We need to vote for reasonable and logical republicans or libertarian--logic and reason always win b/c a person who is logical and reasonable can be persuaded with facts not emotions. Pro-choice stance is based on emotion not logic or reason.
Btw, the human life cycle consist of 3 stages (exception of miscarriage) if not artificially (e.g. abortion doctor) interfered with: Formation (life in the womb), Birth (life outside the womb), and death (no life). One’s natural right ends were another’s natural right begins. And to those who state how about pregnancies evolved from rape and incest, and potential death of the mother; I would say let’s be real, the percentage of abortion from rape, incest, and potential death of the mother are minuscule. I am extreme in my pro-life stance when it is rape and incest (this stance is not easy for me but I don’t believe the unborn should be sentence to death for something they had no control over) but I am logical and reasonable enough to agree that in potential death of the mother, it becomes self defense (which involves your right to preserve your life, therefore you be able to defend yourself similarly to defending yourself in a home invasion). Btw, I believe if abortion was solely limited to rape, incest, and life and death situation for the mother, most pro-life individual (such as myself) would not so horrified.

so you blame the anarchists because you don't have the knowledge to refute the people who have been indoctrinated to believe the government propaganda about anarchists that's been labeled at the libertarians?

that's like saying hate radio is destroying the creditability of republicans.

and anarchists aren't for
"everybody out for themselves" either.

DAVE R...................since osamabama said it......now you have to think about this a bit.........

Libertarianism in all of it's forms supports both the Pro Choice and Pro Life interpretations of the abortion issue.

The key is defining the rights involved. If a fetus is a human (whatever it means to be human and however you define it)it's right to life trumps the mothers right to choose what happens to her body in almost all cases because the fetus exists as a result of choices the mother made (rape and other non consensual acts are the exceptions).

On the other hand, if the fetus is not human (again, whatever that means and however it is defined) then it has no more rights than a bacteria and as such the mothers right to choose what happens to her body is paramount.

The question then becomes, is a fetus human? Libertarian theory offers no clue on how to resolve this question. Nor does it solve the issue of how people who arrive at different answers to the question of whether a fetus is human. The normal libertarian response to such a disagreement is freedom of choice. That is, you are free to believe what you wish and I am free to believe what I wish. The problem is, for those who intrepret human rights such that a fetus is a baby cannot help but see those who have an abortion as being anything but guilty of the most heinous form of rights infringement (murder of an innocent) possible and those who do not see restrictions on abortion as an intrusion into their personal liberty.

There is unfortunately no middle ground.

Neal is wrong on this one. Abortion would be a woman's issue if I wasnt paying for it. Being that I am, I have a say in it -- like it or not.

If women want to abort, they should pay for it w/o govt funding. Also, to make the situation equitable to men, men must also be given the right to abort (at least from any paternal/financial obligations).

Abortion is murder; but I am cool with that as long as we apply it fairly.

What do you think the 9/11 Truth movement is? Yes they are trying to make people aware that 9/11 was an inside job and YES Joyce it was an inside job. 9/11 Truthers embody every one of the 12 values stated by the 9/12 Project. The difference is that WE understand that in order to move forward the people who are responsible for 9/11 have to be brought to justice. Period. Just to make the point...the science behind the "official" story of 9/11 is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY weaker than the evidence behind Global Warming and Global Warming has now been exposed. You might wanna decide sooner rather than later which side you are gonna side with. I have sided with the truth. I have decided that I want to be on the right side of history. I am a truther and a patriot and I am not ashamed to say that I stood up for something grand and all the while I was ridiculed.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." -Mark Twain

booger, there are so many anarchist subgroups out there..........from capitalist anarchist to communist anarchist. i like this one:
"Mutualists belong to a non-collectivist segment of anarchists. Although we favor democratic control when collective action is required by the nature of production and other cooperative endeavors, we do not favor collectivism as an ideal in itself. We are not opposed to money or exchange. We believe in private property, so long as it is based on personal occupancy and use. We favor a society in which all relationships and transactions are non-coercive, and based on voluntary cooperation, free exchange, or mutual aid. The "market," in the sense of exchanges of labor between producers, is a profoundly humanizing and liberating concept. What we oppose is the conventional understanding of markets, as the idea has been coopted and corrupted by state capitalism."

http://members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/index.html

re-Joyce, i can't wait to hear how the anarchists are ruining the libertarian party.

It's pointless to argue with Boortz about abortion. He wants to sweep it under the rug because he thinks that will give GOPuppets a better chance to get elected. He's interested in the tax benefits he somehow expects from GOP government. His conservatism is all about money, and nothing else. He's a Cash Conservative who's quite willing to walk to the bank over the corpses of dead babies.

I don't think Palin is in charge of the Tea Party movement. She is a speaker and campaign fund magnet. The Tea Party people have some very well organized people running it. You disrespect their efforts to say Sarah is running it.

And Beck did get the 912 Group going, no denying that.

They are vicious just because they are using an idea that our Founding Fathers came up with and Ron Paul revived? It wasn't Ron's original idea either Ivan. His group borrowed it from history.

I would certainly not call any Tea Party a neo-con, far from it. They are the epitome of Americanism, a mix of conservatives, independents and even some liberals, all whom are disgusted with the way our government is being grown beyond recognition.

Anyone who can look at the Tea Party people, the 912 group and call them neo-con, I'm wondering if you even know the meaning.

Maybe they should start their own party, cause it seems more and more that the Republicans will never recover and the Libertarians are being ruined by anarchists.

The Presidential election is not until 2012. Until then, in an article titled Don’t Run, Sarah! Newsweek Assesses Palin’s Electoral Prospects (Again), Diane Suffern writes:

She might or might not decide to run in 2012. Until then, we should watch her decisions, consider her record and examine all candidates judiciously. The last time I checked, no one has the nomination yet. Let’s keep it that way until all bids are in.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/08/dont-run-sarah-newsweek-assesses-palins-electoral-prospects/

Doc

I have been re-reading books about the struggles our founding fathers faced when they assembled in a small room for the good part of 6 months writing and debating the Declaration of Independence. I believe the lions share of them to be Libertarians, but none of them from what I read were Anarchists. They all believed in the rule of law of some sort. Now I guess it depends which definition of anarchy you subscribe to, one which promotes "no rule"(each man is an island) or do you believe in "complete collectivism" or somewhere in between.

I saw the speech. If any Republicans are excited with her after that speech then we can be assured of four more years from the Democrats. She was totally uninspiring. She appeared as though that was the last place she wanted to be. The speech sounded like the show notes from Sean Hannity. No originality, no inspiration.

Palin just tells you enough of what you want to hear to get power. Screw that. That is what Beck does. This difference between her and Paul is that Paul has had the same message for 30+ years and now Palin is in charge of the Tea Party movement after one year. Puhleez. This is an attempt by the Neocons to take over a grass roots movement because they can't start their own. It is exactly what Beck has done with the Patriot movement. They are vultures plain and simple. They are viscious and they must be stopped.

I am wrong to argue with these people, as I have already stated my case. They have come to the argument with feelings, and not facts. They refuse to answer the last three paragraphs of my argument before posing their questions.

I would like to restate my argument:
At any point during pregnancy, other that arbitrary views, is an in-utero person not a person. When one uses "their view of when a person is a person," the question must be asked, what is it 1 second before this arbitray moment?

I would also like to pose the question: When is it human?

Answer these, brave warriors, before going on your rant against me, or my impenetrable argument.

You will find that I speak the truth in the subsequent paragraphs of my first post today.

Thank you.

Yeah screw that dumb Neocon...
Palin is a DUMBASSED NEOCON. I could get up and deliver a speech of EPIC proportions at ANY TIME day or night with NO speech writer. I NEED NO NOTES CAUSE I AM REAL. Palin and the rest of the puppet cadre are fake. COMPLETELY FAKE. They are talking heads. They are actors. They stand for nothing except for the status quo. They deserve NO POWER. They deserve to be mocked like the nutjobs they are.
By Ivan

I like Paul too, but what specifically has poor Sarah done to tick you off? She's good for rallying and sorry but the Tea Party does not belong exclusively to Ron Paul. Even he had nice things to say about the current batch just last week. This level of involvement is good for America. Hasn't been seen in ummmmm well I can't think of the last time.

Palin is not presidential material (although neither is Obama) but she can do some good.

And Doc, at this point even a NeoCon (that definition seems to differ depending on who you are) would be better than another round of Obama. At least the damage would be slower.

Wait... isn't that the State's job? What about Planned Parenthood? Also, you don't know the facts, maybe she did use one and it failed. To quote frazier "They're only 97% effect. Even I can't beat those odds."

But seriously... lay off the daughter. Don't you support a pres who said that having a baby is a punishment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

So... isn't the baby "punishment" enough???

BTW, since when has a baby been a punishment? A challenge sure. :)

I did not bring religion into the debate; others have.

My feelings have nothing to do with the discussion; I reply on my thoughts and logic.

When you use arbitrary means of whether it is a person or not, arbitrary means must be used to determine whether it is a person. That looks circular, and it is, hence the illogicity of the argument.

Answer me this, and be consistent: If an endangered species, such as the California Condor, had a just fertilized egg, and a person used it to make scrambled eggs, what would the crime be? Killing an endangered animal? or just being really gross in where they got their eggs from?

It either is or is not killing a human life. It cannot be both, or your argument fails. When is a person a person? This is a great debate, existing from the beginning of time. To those that thought that blacks could be owned by others becasue they weren't quite "persons," I bring the same argument to you: "This entity can be killed because it is not a person." Stand by that. Be proud of it. But, answer this question: "What is it 1 second before it is a person?" If YOU cannot answer that, go back to the premises you have and examine them.

And no, you did not answer my question of when life begins.

You fail, but you did do better than Betty.

your Tennessee oceanfront property? i can because i got the government's eminent domain provisions on it. i love those neocon-republicans for trashing the Constitution!

I do not always agree with you but I have to say we are on the same page with the issue of Sara Palin as a presidential candidate. There are so many reasons she would not make a good candidate to run against Obama in 2012 and I feel the mainstream media is aware of this. That is why I believe they are keeping her name in the publics mind by constantly doing stories on her. They want her to be the republican candidate because they want someone in there that they feel cannot beat Obama because unless something changes in the next 2 1/2 years Obama is going to have a hard time getting re-elected. Tell me, when have you ever seen where the losing vice-presidential candidate is so often mentioned in the media over a year after the election. I do not recall it ever happening. They usually sink back into oblivion. Like you I have nothing against Sara Palin personnally but like Obama I feel she is not equipped to properly run the country. I do not believe she did much to boost the republican ticket in '08 as vice-presidential candidate so why should we expect her to do well as a presidential candidate especially with what has transpired since the election?

Newt is FOR the carbon tax and supports this whole Global Warming agenda of Al Gore. Newt is not who we want. What about Ron Paul or Rand Paul and REAL Conservatives?

Quote: " It actually says it is better to plant their seed in the belly of a whore than to put it on the ground for the ants to eat (or something in that vein)."

No, Betty, the Bible NOWHERE says anything to that effect. I challenge you to either give us the exact scripture reference, or withdraw your "uninformed" (to put it politely) claim.

....."Of course it does give men an excuse for their little forays. It actually says it is better to plant their seed in the belly of a whore than to put it on the ground for the ants to eat (or something in that vein). Now lets get this straight there wouldn't be any whores if there weren't plenty of men willing to make them that way. "<<<<

It's obvious in your insane rantings that you are one man-hating broad. Am I right, sweetcakes? My guess is that men have wronged you in life which is why you carry this bitter anger.

Back to your quote, let me understnding your logic- It's only a man's fault when a women gets impregnated, and apparently the women had no choice in the matter? But at the same time, the women has the only choice in decideing whether to dismember and crush the unborn baby in peices in the womb or keep the baby? What a genius you are!

Every time I see a "Republican" win something in response to this progressive takeover, such as the most recent Scott Brown win, it gives the Republicans and my Independent self hope. The Republicans get to say "see- too much- you libs! The American people are rejecting you!" Then I hope they don't start this abortion crap all over again and wreck their chances, thinking it means the American people are actually embracing all the religious-right policies the Republicans platform on.

@Fransisco (and anyone else who believe the same)- that's great you feel that way. Your choice is easier to make now as you only worry about keeping it or adopting it out. Not everyone feels the way you do because scientifically, it's just a ball of living cell tissue. Does it have a soul? Does it have any conscience? It might be a "baby" moving around and stretching and kicking later at 4 and 5 months, but is it doing it with thought and feeling, or is it spasms of muscle as it's developing? What actually constitutes a person? Different religions/secular viewpoints look at this differently. Until you can prove THAT, then it's a decision best left to the actual out-of-the-womb people involved. Don't forget Copernicus who was exiled by the church because he theorized the Earth was not the center of the universe.

@Eric- this issue of control does have two sides, as there are men who do like to lord over their womenfolk. Those girls who get pregnant to "save a relationship" are stupid. They are just as much embarrassments to our gender.

@ ChristyACB- well said. Exactly.

@ Joyce- I also agree. She should never be president because the longer she stays in the game, the more divisive she will be.

She already divides Republicans and conservatives because she's so God-fearing, which, not all who lean right are. My cousin voted for them, as the alternative was obama, and she's an atheist. Her husband who is also right leaning and raised Catholic,(I don't know what he believes anymore) but he went with the marginal Libertarian vote because Palin's church "scared" him. Which brings us back to the support base. If you have these people voting for your party, like right-leaning independents such as us to name just 3 I know, then you can't start by finding the most controversial candidates who are too far this or that, or picking the wrong issues to grandstand about.

As far as Mitt Romney- I don't know about that guy. I'm from MI, and they made such a big deal about him "coming home to Michigan" when he campaigned here (he left when he was like, 4) and his speech was as bad as every one of obama's: the streets will be paved with gold, everyone will have a job, rainbows overhead and a puppy! Plus, his name is attached to Massachusetts' universal healthcare and his hair doesn't move.

TSHIRT....you can't sell MY ocean front property......

All from men, Boortz? Riiiiiiight.

do you think Sarah Palin actually believes in limited government? if you do i have some Tennessee oceanfront property for sale.

the 2012 presidential election would put Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty in Washington.
But this country does NOT have smart voters. Face it...we're stuck with Chairman Mao Telepromt simply because the dipshits and moochers outnumber the rational and productive in today's America.

Palin is a DUMBASSED NEOCON. I could get up and deliver a speech of EPIC proportions at ANY TIME day or night with NO speech writer. I NEED NO NOTES CAUSE I AM REAL. Palin and the rest of the puppet cadre are fake. COMPLETELY FAKE. They are talking heads. They are actors. They stand for nothing except for the status quo. They deserve NO POWER. They deserve to be mocked like the nutjobs they are.

Neal,
The abortion issue is one were I do part from the true Libertarian.
I feel that under our great constitution the act of committing an abortion is the taking of life and should only be done so "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;". Such as each instance should be processed.

For me the issue boils down to an Integral being one of egg + sperm and integrated for 0 to 9 months. If any time during that integration the internal equation be modified the result is changed therefore a Human being is aborted.

Just curious...who shows the larger modicum of intelligence: the person whose character requires that every word is written for them and displayed on a teleprompter for every occasion he opens his oh-so-Presidential piehole, or some good-lookin' articulate broad whose own thoughts are written with fourteen words on her hand for handy reference if she needs it?

Feel a bit threatened by a strong, conservative woman with a personality? Feeling a bit of buyers remorse with the socialist horse you backed? Maybe just jealous 'cuz she can beat you on both her looks and intelligence.
Dont be hatin' man...

There would be no better guarantee for another Obama term and my boy Rahm in 2016 than if the conservatives nominate a woman who barely graduated college and cannot teach her children about condoms!!!

I enjoyed listening to Governor Palin and I like her, but I don't feel she is presidential material. I beieve the role she can play is Cheerleader and I mean that with great respect. She can rally the troops, get the word out, get the movement going, stick with economic issues; drop any social issues and we will be on our way, but not presidential leadership. Perhaps when the Republicans take back the White House, she can head up one of the departments she has a real passion and "knowledge" about.

This speech wasn't intended to present policy ideas. It was just a rally. The fact is that her ideas are what she says: return to conservative governing principles of limited government. That is her policy. Its not bold, and its not new. Why in the world would that matter? Such an odd thing for Neal to criticize.

I like Palin too but you do not get a second chance to make a first impression. Too many "independents" will never support her and that makes here unelectable. Let's move on. And oh by the way, Mitt Romney is toast too. The health care mess he signed into law is his albatross. Look instead at Tim Pawlenty or John Kasich.

(1) I like Palin's stance on the issues. But I agree, I just hope no one out there actually thinks of having her run on the ticket. She's fine for getting the crowds and fundraisers, but as an actual candidate - no way. The lib media has destroyed her. There is no way the average person out there can look at her with any seriousness and forget the 2008 disaster.

(2)Now I know what this is true ... I know why men are the ones who get worked up the most about this abortion issue. It has something to do with control issues ... control over their womanfolk. But let's not go there today.
---------------------------
Typical Neal, again. Says something idiotic, then says, let's not go there today. If you don't want to go there, why in the hell did you bring it up then????

First, you are doing an Obama - creating arguments that don't exist. Where is this abortocentrist drive? 99% of the talk is economy and national security.

As for "control", then I assume you would agree that there shouldn't be any child support as long as women have the choice and "control over their reproductive parts", right? Afterall, if a women chooses to have a baby, that a man doesn't want, then she should have to pay for the baby - her choice, huh??

Neal,

Speaking of control issues, you have made several times that you will not talk about it, yet you do when you put it on your blog.

Now I know that contradictions do not exist, I must check my premises. My premise used to be that you are above that topic, but my premise is now that you cannot handle a discussion of the issue, based on your beliefs.

Here is my case, and here is the basic premise:
Life begins at conception. 1 nanosecond (or any portion thereof) before conception, the sperm and egg are not human. They are components of human life. An egg discharged during a woman's fertile years through menstruation is not a spontaneous abortion, nor is a young man's experiments in self "expression".

Once the egg is fertilized, it is human. Given the natural (and yes, extraordinary measures to save this person are natural parts of humanity, for example, running into a burning building to save a person, etc.) progression, a baby will exit the woman's womb.

At any point during pregnancy, other that arbitrary views, is an in-utero person not a person. When one uses "their view of when a person is a person," the question must be asked, what is it 1 second before this arbitray moment?

That is the fundamental question, and when you get fuzzy about it, you, sir, are lying. Lying to yourself, or to us.

You may disagree with me, but you are wrong. You have no facts to back it up, and therefore, you must either live a lie, or change your premises.

Think Pat Buchanan with nice legs.

Perpetual candidate. Electable? Not likely. But considering our current leader anything is possible.

It's clear that she's not qualified, and the Republicans who align themselves with her now may be making the same mistake the Democrats made when they ignored the decidedly underwhelming resume of Barack Obama.

But she's obviously intelligent and willing and able to learn, so I would not count her out as a viable candidate in 2012.

You hit that nail square on the head.

When you're a reasonably intelligent citizen committed to the principles of limited government, that doesn't mean you get to pick a few really intrusive ones to exempt.

It is sort of an all or nothing game when it comes to government encroachment. Either it is, or isn't.

Abortocentric republicans really are losing a huge wedge of support.

Truth be told, it is a situation that calls for support within the family and if a man (cuz almost all those whackjobs are men) can't get their own daughters to carry to term, how can really expect to force a nation of women to do so?

It's simply a line we can't cross again. Until then, I have to vote libertarian (independent) even though I know it divides the vote.

So many can't vote outside the dictates of the constitution or their firm belief in limited government. That ain't in it.

Anyone who votes for a candidate based on where they are for or against abortion is a complete fool. They better worry about important issues first. Abortion is not going to be stopped whether it is legal of not. If someone wants one they will find a way. There are actually idiots who don't even believe in birth control. Pick these fools out and let them support all the kids who result for this.

I know you think she isn't qualified but I am more qualified for President than the incompetent boob we have in there now. He thinks all he has to do is give a command and it is automatically done kind of like being a king. At least Sarah Palin is trying to learn. She has two more years. She can get plenty of education in that time. Seems she did know you can see Russia from Alaska (which you can from a certain point) but Obama didn't even know how many states there are.

AGREE 1000%

But not as president. Great for campaign fund raising, maybe she could do Michael Steele's job.

I hope she steps back and realizes this is not her time, really would not want to see her get trashed again by this insane media.