Saturday, August 25, 2012

lying liars lie

we expect politicians to "stretch the truth"... okay, they lie... we know that... but to make up a lie, get caught, then lie about the lie, get caught again, and finally dismiss it as if it weren't important... that takes some brass nuts of epic proportions.

for instance:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz... also heads up the Democratic National Committee. [I] just want to show you some of the fund-raising letter that she sent out this week. [It says], "Their party just voted to embrace Akin's position by including a constitutional ban on all abortions even in cases of rape or incest in their 2012 platform."
"But guess what? 'The Los Angeles Times' reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, 'written at the direction of Romney's campaign.'"

(emphasis added)
so, according to the DNC and Chairwoman Schultz, the Romney campaign (and therefore, Mitt Romney, himself) supports banning all abortions, no matter the circumstances... and the DNC surely wouldn't decieve, prevaricate, exagerate, fabricate, or even lie... would they?
[T]hat quote was taken completely out of context. It was ripped in fact out of a sentence. If you put it back into that sentence, here's what it looks like -- quote -- this is from "The L.A. Times." "Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that were written at the direction of Romney's campaign." So the DNC letter takes the last eight words out of that sentence, using it to suggest something that full sentence obviously does not suggest.
(emphasis added)
what?... they took eight words out of a completely different sentance and applied it to an entirely different idea... not even specific to abortion; just relative to the RNC platform as a whole.
well, they're caught... nothing to do but apologize... maybe say it was a typographical error... but surely they wouldn't lie again?
COOPER: You do acknowledge that Mitt Romney supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, don't you?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Mitt Romney's words are very nice, but the bottom line is that Romney's campaign just directed the Republican Party platform to include the most restrictive constitutional amendment... even in the case of rape or incest.

COOPER: Do you at least acknowledge that the quote that you gave from "The L.A. Times" is completely incorrect?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Anderson, what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter.
lie... called out... lie again... called out... "it doesn't matter."

oh, but had it been a Republican, it would have mattered then... it must only be okay to lie if you're a liberal.

i'd call Debbie Wasserman Schultz a liar and a liberal, but i'd be repeating myself.

and kudos to Anderson Cooper of CNN for pointing out the lie... finally something "fair" if not balanced.

source: - Transcripts
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES - Interview With Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz; Romney Avoiding Abortion Debate
- Aired August 23, 2012 - 22:00 ET

Ron Paul delegates taking aim at Republican Party platform
August 20, 2012 - By Paul West
"Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign."

Thursday, August 23, 2012

the "no-reasonable-person" argument

i often get the "no-reasonable-person" argument right after my "slippery-slope" argument... it goes like this:
ME: "If you allow A, then you will eventually have to allow B."
REASONABLE PERSON: "No reasonable person will ever allow B."
well, guess what?... there are those among us who are "reasonable" and are pushing arguments that the rest of us abhor... but we've already gone past the point of no return in many cases.

for instance... abortion... (oh lord, here he goes again)... well, we've already allowed the unborn to be aborted at will... maybe we condemn certain methods like partial-birth, but we turn a blind eye to other methods which achieve the same end result; the death of the unborn.

but No-Reasonable-Person would equate abortion and infanticide... right?... right?

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
- Journal of Medical Ethics - 23 February 2012
step #1: redefine the terms of the argument... it isn't infanticide... it's after-birth-abortion... because you've already accepted the term abortion as morally neutral.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
did they just make "non-human animals" equivalent to the mentally retarded?... i do believe they did!... and more so, they qualified their argument as "many non-human animals and mentally retarded" are persons; so, by definition, some are not persons.

let that sink in.

in case you missed it, adults who are mentally retarded are given a status below that of "many non-human animals"... they do not have a "moral right to life"... in other (more clear) words, you can kill them with impunity, with no regard to their rights (as they have none).

the "reasonable person" would argue that we would only allow aborting those which are unable to fulfill their potential as a person... "no reasonable person" would suggest aborting healthy children... right?

If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.
that's right... they want to abort healthy infants.

but we're not on a slippery slope... are we?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Thursday, August 16, 2012

soylent green energy - it's made of people!

The UN has called for an immediate suspension of government-mandated US ethanol production, adding to pressure on Barack Obama to address the food-versus-fuel debate in the run-up to presidential elections.

Most US ethanol is made from corn. The dispute over ethanol promotion pits states such as Iowa that benefit from higher corn prices – and in some cases are swing states in the election – against livestock-raising states such as Texas that are helped by lower corn prices.

The UN intervention will be seized upon by state governors, lawmakers and the meat and livestock industry, who have expressed alarm at surging prices for corn. Members of the Group of 20 leading economies – including France, India and China – have already expressed concern about the US ethanol policy.

The US is poised to divert around 40 per cent of its corn into ethanol because of the Congress-enacted mandate despite “huge damage” to the crop because of the worst drought in at least half a century, José Graziano da Silva, director-general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, warned.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that [ethanol] mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channelled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Financial Times.

As Starvation Looms, UN Begs Obama to Suspend Biofuel Mandates
via Hawaii Free Press from:
Environmentalists Implementing their Population Control Plans - August 9, 2012

Monday, August 13, 2012

turn of the screw(ed)

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." - Barack Obama (2008)

he lied...

as a matter of fact, when you think about it (assuming, of course, you think), the tax increase hits the poor much heavier than the rich.
and here's the proof:
Income up to:Marginal Tax Rate 2012Tax PaidEffective Tax Rate2013 Marginal2013 Tax Paid2013 EffectiveDifference Paid
example: $500,00035.0%$151,76130.4%39.6%$167,92233.6%$16,161

"For they all cast in from the surplus that they had, but this one has cast in from her want, everything that she had; she cast in all her possessions." - Jesus (Mark 12:44)
the problem is simple... the poor need what little money they have... the rich can spare a dime... this is the basis for much of the liberal's arguments... tax the rich; they can afford it... unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life... there aren't enough rich people to siphon off.

in 2009 (which is the data i have handy... i'd look up 2011, but i'm being lazy), there were about 140.5 million tax returns in the US... 4 million tax returns (that's 2.8% of all returns) from earners of $200,000 or more... from those under that magic number, there were 136.5 million tax returns (or 97.2%).

of the income tax collected from the 2.8% of rich folk, the IRS collected $434 billion... from the other 97.2% of the poor folk, the IRS collected $432 billion... literally half of all of the taxes collected came from those bastard 2.8% rich people who aren't paying their fair share.

a good liberal will reference Mark 12:44 in an effort to squeeze more money from the rich... the problem is the rich are the ones investing in retirement accounts, investing in businesses, and hiring people... they pay salaries of everyone (economically) below them... they put the most into Social Security (which should make any good Marxist happy)... every tax on the rich is also a tax on the poor... it creates more unemployed workers... it takes money out of investment funds... it means less goes into Social Security.

and for God's sake, stop extending the Bush Era Tax Cuts... it's just less money going into Social Security... 2% every year is being withheld from Social Security because of this... end those, and cut 2% from tax payers over $200,000... they'll invest it... they'll hire people... they'll save Social Security... we'll help the poor, create jobs, and become a profitable nation again.

this is not rocket science... it's economics.

United States: 2013 Federal Income Tax Update
23 May 2012
Article by James N. Phillips and Timothy C. Smith of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

eugenics much?

Pursuant to PPACA’s provision for no-cost preventive care services for women, insurance policies will be required to provide no-cost prenatal genetic testing starting August 1, 2012. A preventive treatment exists in response to many non-genetic prenatal tests.

There is no treatment pre- or post-natally for the extra 21st-chromosomal material that causes Down syndrome. Currently, an estimated 400,000 Americans have Down syndrome. Characterizing prenatal testing for Down syndrome as “preventive care” expresses a policy that fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome should be prevented from being born. Indeed, a member of the Court’s majority, Justice Ginsberg, previously stated in an interview that one purpose of abortion is to reduce “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Population reduction is exactly what happens where there is a public policy for prenatal genetic testing.

In and of itself, prenatal testing is value neutral and simply provides information—indeed, the diagnosis of Down syndrome is typically accompanied by shock because it, too, is unexpected. Further, reducing the cost of prenatal testing through public policies is not necessarily problematic. But if prenatal testing is to be offered at no-cost, why is there not a corresponding mandate to provide all of the information necessary for an expectant mother to make an informed decision?

To say that a genetic condition should be prevented, with the only means of that prevention being abortion, is morally objectionable. It hearkens back to the eugenics atrocities of the last century. To further have that goal stated by a federal regulation is grossly objectionable and, one would hope, unexpected by our elected officials, as it very likely was when the regulations were passed.
Supreme Court Unexpectedly Upholds Regulatory Elimination of Down Syndrome July 12, 2012 By Amy Julia Becker

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
The Place of Women on the Court By EMILY BAZELON Published: July 7, 2009