Sorry, Mau... Won't be making THAT leap is year. ;)

@Edward, wow what happened here. It's like coming home from vacation and seeing the kid had a party and some of his guests trashed the house. Stay strong.

:) sorry Ma...u

Lyle did it, I swear!

Thank you, Mr. Hoffa.

I hold nothing against Gov Perry for his endorsement, and strategically I miht have done the same thing. I have the luxury of acting upon my principles in who I endorse, so I must.

I didn't throw in the towel, as you acknowledge with my activity here. My cause is not limited to one man, and Gov Perry and I are fighting for the same direction, just in a different context. :)

I cannot actively support one candidate over another right now, since I view them all as better than the current President Zero, yet not dissimilar enough to earn my particular endorsement. I am helping Senate candidates behind the scenes. Note: FoundersIntent.org is candidate-neutral

Honestly, at this point even Romney is looking good.

Sigh.....

@Lyle -

And what exactly are you basing your conclusions upon? 'Celebrate Walker' was a HUGE success! And it sounds like this latest endeavor is picking up steam and gaining traction quickly. I give Mr. Willing a lot of credit for putting himself out there on the front lines and trying.

What exactly is your beef with Mr. Willing that justifies the negative well wishes, as I honestly don't understand the negativity and subtle hostility here?

@JRH...No animosity, just reality. I just like to provide a counter balance to extreme right wing eyewash. As far as reinstating states rights to what they were, wrong direction. I really don't wish to revisit the 18th, 19th and early 20th century. We have moved beyond and it is destructive to attempt to return that was dysfunctional to begin with. States Rights advocate only have to look to the EU to see what a return to The Articles of Confederation would look like.

I adamantly oppose the over-simplificiation of FI's purpose into being about "state's rights." Simple minds make simple generalizations, I suppose.

Alexander Hamilton (someone Lyle might even admire) noted that the Constitution gave an equal. Balance between the two entities - the Federal Government and State governments were meant to give citizens a course of redress against the other should one invade the the personal sphere of the individual.

Restoration of the 9th and 10th amendments empower individuals to protect themselves and eir "inalienable rights" against the "inevitable violations" of a so-sold benevolent Government.

Lyle, if you don't like those amendments, do the opposite of me, and work to remove them from the Constitution. Until then, you're all talk.

@Edward Willing...I don't have a problem with the 9th and 10th amendment. the only thing I have a problem with is your attempts to redefine them to reintroduce your peculiar ideas of freedom and interpretation of inalienable rights. Besides what you want to do will never be tolerated by the plutocracy creating a crisis of order. While you're at it, are you going to go ahead and start your own militia? That should be your next step in the overthrow of the federal government and the establishment of your theocratic utopia.

@Lyle

Your comments are almost pointless to respond to, but I must at least respond for the purpose of fact-checking and correction.

I never have, nor will ever promote or support a theocracy. Your repeated attempts over the last few months to marginalize me with this false accusation are desperate in the least and denegrating at worst.

I have never even attempted yet to define the 9th or 10th amendments, so your accusation that I have is not only erroneous, it reveals exactly what is behind your posts: proactive consternation and narrow-mindedness.

But, since you seem intent on redefining me, lets see whether you, Mr. Government Worker, would really be intellectually honest and still support the clear value of the Constitution and these amendments.

(Continued)

The 9th reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If anything, the 10th should have come before the 9th, but I digress.

There is not need for "defining" here, merely application. A Progressive such as yourself are adamantly opposed to the powers these Amendments give any other entity other than the Federal Government. They gaurantee that the Feds could never construe the powers granted by the States to overrule the states.

The 10th simply reiterated the obvious: all other rights remain with the people. Since the Government is the converse side of this balance, the argument cannot be made - as it so often is - that "the Government IS the people."

@Edward Willing...Sorry but I have a whole file of your past posts and comments. Also, I am not a government worker. Sorry to disappoint you. You can call it what you want but only a theocrat would take the positions you have on pro choice reproductive and women's health issue rights.

@Lyle

The fact that you "have a file" on my past posts and comments leaves me both freaked out and flattered at the same time. Creep. Groupie.

Also, I haven't discussed reproductive rights or women's health. We are discussing the ninth and tenth amendments, as well as other FoundersIntent issues.

"There you go again"

As for government worker, you WERE one. It was on your profile when you first joined Patch as a reader. When challenged, you removed it. And no, i didn't get that from "your file."

I'm not a creep nor in need of a target for my otherwise-rejected points of view.

Um, Edward, all you have to do is type your "handle" in the search box to read your own or others' posts...there's nothing creepy or 'groupie' about it, it's the internet.

You're not the first right-wing person to turn around in the middle of a discourse and accuse someone of being "fixated," or in your case, "creepy," "groupie." It's inappropriate and says a lot about the person who writes something like that. And as a commenter, It's hard to take an article writer seriously when they start namecalling. Primary school stuff.

Um, Bren

He referenced "a file", not a search. I responded to the words he typed, you're responding to something that didn't happen.

Also, I'm not "turning around in the middle of a discourse." Lyle literally pivoted in the middle of an altogether different subject to discuss theocracy and reproductive rights. What's inappropriate is the weirdness and inaccuracy of your attempted defense of Lyle and his own weirdness.

I didn't name-call. I described his behavior. And Lyle came swinging at me as a person, as is the usual liberal tactic. Y'all debate personalities, not policies; people, not issues.

I look forward to a return to the actual issue at hand. A non-profit; the Tenth Amendment; the Constitution; local government.

Not "theocracy" or "reproductive rights"

@Edward Willing...Should I remind you of your participation in Right to Life demonstrations while still a boy accompanying your mother. You shouldn't be flattered that I have maintained a blog file, since I knew you'd keep at your blather. In addition, I never denied having worked for a mental health facility both while in the Navy and as a civilian. After leaving mental health I was involved in business for over three decades.

@ Lyle

My participation in said events as a child has nothing to do with theocracy, and nothing to do with this thread.

I am a supporter of Constitutional government. Period.

Any other interpretation on your part is useless.

“States Rights advocate [sic] only have to look to the EU to see what a return to The Articles of Confederation would look like.”

Lyle:

Your statement compares apples to oranges.

America created a political union followed by a fiscal union. In contradistinction, the EU created a fiscal union (i.e., the Euro) in an effort to thereafter foster a political union. While Hamilton had the benefit of working with a post-revolutionary republic to mold a young and malleable 13 founding states into a political union, the EU did (does) not have this benefit because each of the European nations had already achieved its long-established sovereignty.

@PR

Brilliant :)

cont'd @ Lyle:

Not to mention, in past comments, you appear to have minimized both Europe’s and Greece’s fiscal problems when defending your views of Democratic Socialism against critical commenters. Yet, here you set forth the EU as a negative example of what American states should avoid in seeking the rights advocated by Mr. Willing?

While it is well established that the EU has disclosed its weakness as a “confederation” with its struggle to impose austerity and reforms on certain countries, such as Greece, you appear to only selectively acknowledge this fact.

@Edward Willing...I don't understand what you expect the 9th and 10th amendments to do. What specific rights or freedoms have you/we lost that evoking said amendments will address or restore. I am very curious, since in the past you classified your belief in the "New Federalism", whatever that means by your definition. Please enlighten me.

Just out of curiosity, Lyle, who else are you keeping files on here?

I gotta say I find that a bit odd.

@patchreader123...My point illustrates that one needs a sovereign central power to create a system that is able to meet the needs of a population that are not strictly isolated by individual national interests. For whatever reasons the EU is not able to currently get over this hurdle. Another example is the UN, it also lacks any real sovereignty and power.

As a nation we tried the system with sovereign states having the majority control and it was not functional. Why would we want to return to a system where states have more power than what they already have? The states can't even govern themselves now; what makes anyone think that if given more power they will do a better job.

As far as my past references to the systems adopted in the EU or European states, they have a much better job of guaranteeing human rights and providing for the basic needs of their populations such as national healthcare and national education.

@Bob McBride...I like to keep tabs on certain people who seem to contradict themselves. The more interesting statements concerning distinct ideology are the ones that I retain for future reference. Edward Willing has made some very controversial statements in the past and as a charismatic personality who accumulate followers, I have taken particular notice.

J. Edgar Ruble ?

Sans the cross-dressing - I hope.

Edward, you wrote, " Creep. Groupie." That is name-calling. When I see name-calling on Patch, I point it out and try to end it. I do not believe that the pursuit of civility in a public forum is "weird" or "inaccurate." "I didn't name-call. I described his behavior." Yes, you did name call, and you employed a bizarre strategy to try to distract and disconcert someone with far greater knowledge on the topic than you. A cheap shot which, as I wrote before, says much about you, and for everyone on Patch to see.

And Mr. Ruble needs no help from me in countering your...interesting...take on Founder intent.

Bren, leave the policing of the board here to the folks at Patch who are assigned that task and who do it in an even-handed fashion. If you don't like Ed's language you can flag the post as inappropriate - like us mere mortals do.

I apologize if my classification of Lyle's creepy and well-rationalized but strange behavior offended the completely innocent liberals here and their totally civil sensibilities.

Nonetheless, it's hard for me to not have such a response to a man who implied abuse of my child and not-so-indirectly accused me of parental neglect in the past.

I don't have tolerance for a "follower" who takes my foray into the public spotlight for a good cause as an invitation to engage in Hoover-esque, self-aggrandizing activities to apparently make the world a better place.

I'm making the world a better place by keeping files on history and policies. Not philisophical opponents. Speaking of, gotta go.

@Bob McBride...Do you think that cross dressing would help me keep better files? By the way, over the weekend I ran across a factoid concerning J. Edger, he had the single largest private pornography collection on record. He's another personality that just keeps giving.

I don't know. I guess if one is to assume he represents the paramount in the world of file keeping, it wouldn't hurt to adopt a few of his proclivities to see. Not necessarily that last one - which no doubt was related to the retention of "evidence".

@Edward Willing...Sometimes it helps to understand the philosopher when attempting to understand the philosophy. You still haven't responded to my questions concerning what you expect the concentration on the 9th and 10th amendments will yield.

Lyle

I have a life. You know, making a living. If I haven't responded its because I'm either two busy or your question was too obvious for me to waste my valuable time reanswering. I already gave a starter list to Keith down at the bottom of this thread.

*too busy.

Tablet typo

Lyle Ruble - the weak liberal hater.

Bob, I know there are certain types of folks on the playground who like to tattle and call names, I'm not one. Self-editing is a good thing.

Even though none of our state's problems will be solved on Patch, these boards provide an opportunity for differing points of view to try to find a middle ground. Namecalling and attempts to bully (in general) do not advance the discourse, and are not persuasive. I would not waste my time here if I didn't honestly believe something positive could eventually come of it.

Bren if you were at least consistent in pointing out similar offenses by those on your side of the political fence (and I can point you in the direction of numerous threads you've been involved in where one particular individual notorious for name calling was at it in a major way), I might give you some credit for being even-handed. As that's not the case, I'll suggest, as I did before, that you use the "Flag as inappropriate" option and let the folks in charge decide. Your insight and objectivity in these matters isn't superior to that of anyone else here and the Patch moderators and editors have made it clear that they prefer we use that method for addressing issues of that nature

To repeat...

Calling someone a creep for keeping a file on me is not name-calling.

And even if it was, it's called for. Lyle has a problem, and I waste no emotions regretting calling him what he is for doing so. We have never met, have barely talked before, sans a few exchanges on patch. This is a strange man, and I will call him on it.

And, good point Bob. ;) Bren never comes out on the other side. That's what his "file" shows me. (read: the internet) lol

Bob, Edward, we'll just have to disagree on the issue of when to complain to Patch and about what.

As I have written ad nauseum here, I am not subjective on the issue of the Walker recall. I support the recall effort 100%. You will not find a post from me supporting Scott Walker (i.e., on the internet).

Concerning your "creep" comment Edward, I will iterate my point (in different words) that employing the language that you are, and the assertion you are making, suggests a mindset. As I also stated, this isn't the first time someone on the "conservative" side of the aisle has turned midstream in a discussion and gone personal like this, and in the cases I've seen (as in this thread), it's because the targeted commenter has posted very strong opposing views. I find it a distasteful way of trying to win an argument, akin to tipping over a chessboard in the middle of a game.

Bren:

Despite not agreeing with all of your opinions, I find your comments to be generally well reasoned and objective. However, I gotta ask:

You criticize Ed Willing's credibility via his "name calling" on these comment boards. Yet you fail to call out Jason Patzfahl’s credibility, despite him directing insulting remarks at Governor Walker's wife and sons.
http://caledonia.patch.com/blog_posts/i-didnt-know-my-neighbors-were-into-sm

Instead, you appear to condone such remarks by merely stating to Jason that he has written “an interesting article!”

What gives?

Like I have stated to Jason, say what you will about the Governor. If Jason Patzfahl wants to call the Governor an “*ss-clown” and create and post a video of such name calling, so be it. I'm sure he is very proud of himself.

However, leave the wife and kids out of it. I'm assuming that Jason Patzfahl would not like derogatory comments directed at his family, nor would you or anyone else.

Again, what gives?

Bren, it's not a matter of disagreeing, It's that you're wrong. If you've got a problem with the language used in a post, use the "Flag as inappropriate" link and be done with it. You're not the authority here. Back the ego down a few notches.

Bob, you see trying to promote civil discourse as 'wrong?" Interesting.

Patchreader, the difference between Jason's article and Edward Willing's comments is that Jason's is a work of near-Voltairian satire, deliberately provocative. I believe Edward Willing is serious.

No, Bren. You calling out Ed for "Creep" in this thread, instead of just using the "Flag" option, while completely ignoring similar (or worse) instances of the same thing elsewhere as inconsistent - and wrong.

What you claim to be doing and what you're actually doing are two different things.

I disagree.

And you don't think Jason is?

Read his other posts.

Google him and read his "blue-collar" blogs.

Any explanation of satire is a thin veil, at best.

Bren:

Also, what is the difference between Jason's comments and Limbaugh's comments? You have posted comments objecting to the remarks made by Limbaugh towards the law student.

Are Limbaugh's comments not "deliberately provocative?" His whole show is deliberately provocative, which is why I refuse to listen to him and the other partisan hacks (Beck, Schultz et al) that rely on such provocation to garner ratings.

So, per your logic:

Jason insulting the Governor's family is permissible as deliberately provocative.
Limbaugh insulting the law student is not, despite being deliberately provocative?

What's up with that?

@Bren

Let me clarify, since you seem to be in doubt.

I absolutely AM serious in calling out the twisted behavior of Lyle in keeping a file on a blogger he's never met, has never given him reason to, and doesn't really need to have one, since it's all online.

That IS creepy, and it's not name-calling. Deal with it. I'm proud of saying it, it shows I have the guts to.

Edward you have to remember that Lyle and Keith are two old wilted flower children from the 60's still waiting for the Age of Aquarius. Their religion is Big Government and if you do a little sherlock holmes investigation of both of them(google), you will find that their personal lives are intertwined in Big Government and reliance upon the gubmint.

:)

Thanks Alfred, now I can't seem to get that song, of sunshine, out of my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0G8XJNz4bY

Lyle and Kieth's nirvana!

When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius, Aquarius, Aquarius

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the minds true liberation

Aquarius, Aquarius

When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius, Aquarius, Aquarius
Aquarius, Aquarius, Aquarius

@Alfred...To be precise, astronomically the Age of Aquarius came into being sometime mid nineteenth century. Astrologically, the Age of Aquarius, which will last approximately 2200 years is to bring on the great equality of all mankind.

Alfred, why don't you give me your full name so that everyone on the Patch can Google you? I don't care what turns up. Attempts to challenge my intellectual credibility are useless. What gets posted is all that's important. It either stands or falls on its own merits.

Lyle the way we conduct our personal lives says a lot about who are, don't you agree? Your logical fallacies and emotive thinking is part of your generation, there is nothing logical about your posts here, it would take too much time to tear them apart but they are incorrect and the fact that you put your name out there for all of us to see is your own problem and live with the consequences of your actions on CCAP.

No way in hell would I put name out in the public for you unhinged types to stalk me? A responsible person prefers to remain anonymous, you are an attention seeker.

@Alfred...You've said enough to let everyone know that you're not to be taken seriously. You snipe from behind a non de plume and expect people to take you seriously.

@Lyle
Regarding Alfred's full name... Why are you so freakishly addicted to researching people? Why WOULD he give his name, now that you've been exposed for having a "file" on Edward Willing?

Calling people out for anonymity is not noble. It only makes you appear stalkerish. If you want to know more about him, how about you do it the old fashioned way and ask him out to a movie?

You have a very sadly diluted and deluded sense of history. And you completely ignoring, maybe conveniently, the entire vision of the Founders and what they would have thought about your implied philosophy. Also, you have your timelines off so badly, I'll leave you to google to figure out the truth.

The Federal Government didn't "put down" any rebellion either. Technically, there WAS no Federal Government, and after expelling a tyranical power, it was the individual States that saw fit to knit together their own nation, not the Feds.... hinged upon the Tenth Amendment, added at the last minute by James Madison to avoid the unraveling of the ratification process.

LOL @ Keith. Let me ask you Keith, are you afraid of ALL personal responsibility, or just some? Is it because you are weak, old, and too foolish to make your own decisions, or just scared because you never had to?

Quit making crap up about the tea party and trying to compare it to some rebellion from 200 years ago.

Fair enough, Keith. The Whiskey Rebellion was definitely about more than mere whiskey. Although I know some who might argue whiskey is more than enough to shed blood over.

The point is what you said at the end: the STATES sewed together the Constitution/federal system, not the other way around.

Some other readers on this thread have misinterpreted my embrace of this philosophy to indicate anarchy of the States is in order, or that some antiquated and inapplicable philosophy is what I want to restore.

Everything from oil drilling and highway building to local building codes and unemployment policy (and health care choices) are now being determined by federal bureaucrats.

If restoring the 9th and 10th amendments to proper observance helps rebalance that disparity, then I've done my part in bringing about a better world.

My child's education, health care (or insurance) decisions, my community zoning preferences, local business tactics, light bulb purchases or driving habits are MY OWN decision or that of my local State government. NOT an officer or paper-pushing, unelected brainiac 2,000 miles away

Thank you for the compliment, Vicki

But you made several misstatements.
1) democrats have controlled congress since 2006 until this last election.
2) republicans are not in the majority right now. I'll give you the benefit and assume this absolute falsehood was inadvertent. Democrats held the house, senate and presidency for two of the last three years, and still control the Senate and Presidency. Republicans cannot do anything.
3) I do not support "the republican agenda," I support a Conservative one. The GOP is filled with Progressives too, and if you actually read my post you have seen that implied in my notes. My goal is good policy, not party loyalty
4) bush did not create this mess. I don't defend bush very often, since he was a big spending republican and supported NCLB, the Patriot Act, TARP and Medicare Part D. But the policy allowingsubprime mortgages & the market maneuvers to spread risk were borne out of a Democrat administration (Clinton) and a Democrat Chairmanship (Dodd and Frank). I have video proving that mcCain, Frist, Bush and others were pushing against Frank and other Dems for more transparency and an end to the virtually unlimited power of the two GSE mortgage banks.

Not that any of this or the GOP agenda has anything inherently to do with the Founders intentions or this post. It appears youre making alot of assumptions for lack of time to ask/wait for an answer, hopefully you'll see that I'm my own man & wear no political label but my own

I forgot to mention, Vicki, I dedicated a blog full time during Bush's presidency dedicated to criticisms of Medicare, immigration policy, lack of SS reform, Patriot Act, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

Think twice before quoting a "stupid" writer when insulting my philosophy. I didn't call yours stupid or imply that you surround yourself with stupid people. Thankfully, Conservatism is not only proven but is intelligent and common sense at the same time. If any stupid people are Conservative it's because it makes sense to the uneducated.

It's Bush's fault that Barry Soetero is failing! Hey Vicki before you go off quoting Mill, use a little context sweetheart, the 'conservatives' of his time are today's liberals...

►The Republicans are in the majority right now

lol I looked at the world upside down once but it made my head hurt.

Vicki, all I can say is to quote myself: "Although it is not true that all liberal women are fat ugly self hating pigs, it is true that most fat ugly self hating pigs are liberal women."

Right back at ya.

For Vicki, it's a few years out of date but you won't mind.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

Because Bush is to Blame for Everything.

They don't teach that anymore in the gubmint schools.

@oak creek resident...If you look at Mill's definition of conservative from the late 18th and 19th century, you have missed his intent altogether. Mill's was by any measure a utilitarian and he looked at those who opposed change as conservatives. This doesn't have anything to do with our definitions. Political and economic libertarians want to return to a past that was fraught with problems. That represents the truest since of conservatism.

As far as your logic concerning fat ugly self hating pigs are liberal women, bad logic. You need to take a critical thinking class.

Lyle needs to take a civility class.

I dare him to treat people like this to their face over a drink. I'm sure he's much more civil in real life.

For clarification - I'm not suggesting we meet. I wouldn't want you to add any unknown audio to your "file" you've assembled on me. Just sayin....

@Edward Willing...Sorry that you feel so creeped out, but I have caught you in too much historical misinformation in the past. I read you carefully and feel obliged to challenge you when start revisionist history. I did look through your website and found it to be what I expected, just another point for bashing the federal government. Something that I share with you is that the federal government definitely violated our individual rights with the Patriot Act and it remains so. There are enough violations of our rights that it is well that we keep a watchful eye. However, to be honest with you, I am always looking for a deeper agenda with you.

Lyle, you are not my intended audience.

therefore, I don't care about your point of view, and your efforts to hold me accountable are pointless. They accomplish nothing beyond stroking whatever inner need for self-importance you may have. I have not revised history, and other than human error, I have not misrepresented any historical facts.

Keep your file on me. But you should at least realize that few care about your repeated attempts at accountability.

I'd like to see you put this much effort into Graeme Z.

Those didn't show up in the "file" on you....

@Edward Willing...I know that I'm not your intended audience and that makes it even more important that I comment on your claims and interpretations. No one is credible unless they can withstand their critics and meet challenges with reasonable responses. Perhaps your home schooling didn't prepare you for that type of exchange. As far as I know you claim a degree in theology, but was that an online degree also? Perhaps from Liberty Union, TAD, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, etc.

"Perhaps from Liberty Union, TAD, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, etc"

Lyle you can't help but sound elitist, right? Have a problem with Christian Universities? Are they not as smart as you?

@Lyle

I think you're trying very hard to bait me, because your comments are so full of condescending and insulting trash it makes it hard to not respond in kind about the life you lived. Although I do wonder what made you so creepish sometimes.

You aren't my intended audience, which means none of us answer to you. It doesn't make YOU any more important. I knew this was about your own feeling of self-importance. At least you're man enough to admit it.

My lack of desire to prove you wrong doesn't show a lack of credibility - it shows that no one respects you as an intellectual in this thread, and that I find no value in your posts.

"Perhaps your home schooling didn't prepare you for that type of exchange."

Actually, Lyle, I'm better prepared, and I'm quite good at it. Perhaps the bubble you reside in gives you no real perspective on homeschoolers. The CHEA conference is in May at Country Springs Resort. Come meet a few. Bring an extra pair of boots for that foot you'll have in your mouth all day.

As for my degree, no, it's real. Not online. I went to school, Lyle.
I love seeing you make a fool out of yourself with your tired stereotypes of Christian Conservatives

The reason I don't need to answer to you with my beliefs or accuracy is because I've dedicated my life to giving my son a world you will never understand or want. In fact, removing from this earth the kind of mentality you espouse is my #1 mission in life, for the sake of my son

@Alfred...When it comes to institutions of higher education; I am an elitist to the extent that I believe that it should be a higher education and not just propaganda brain washing. One of the problems is that there are too many people with degrees and too little actual education.

@Lyle
Unlike you I don't live in a theoretical world where everything is a shade of grey. I've taken 2 logic courses in college, and what I can logically see is that you are nothing more than a lazy parasitic swindler.

Sure you type a nice eloquent sentence, but there is no logic behind it. I'd say you are on par with some of these pseudo-intellectual college professors, like the ones who espouse who evil the US is, how evil caucasians are, and how we should give back Texas to Mexico.

And, but looking at your CCAP records, I see that I am 100% correct in my assessment of you.... again, a weak parasitic liberal who thinks flowery speech will make up for the lack of drive, ability, and work ethic.

Lyle you are WRONG AGAIN. The founding fathers were classically liberal in their views of individual freedoms, taxation, law, etc. Those views today are libertarian.

I don't know what kind of education you have, but it most surely is a poor one.

Now please go pay for fcking bills so us productive conservatives won't have to pay them for you, parasite.

@oak creek resident...Why don't come out from behind from your nom de plume and we'll check you out. You probably won't, just tell me where to send your white feather.

What is certain is that academics shouldn't be your chosen field. I don't know what has prompted your anti-intellectualism, but it doesn't help your case. Your writing style and content may appeal to the "Teahadists", but I would venture that's about it. As you venture forth, it would probably be wise to stay off of threads you don't understand. Whether you realize it or not you're an embarrassment to yourself.

@oak creek resident...It's obvious that you don't understand "classical liberal" as it was used during the Age of Enlightenment. The term libertarian was in reference to someone who held the view of "free choice" verses the view of "determinism". The late enlightenment thinkers like John Stuart Mill rejected the notion of determinism. Libertarianism as it is now understood didn't come into being until mid 19th century and was closely associated with anarchism. It still retains its anarchistic character.

The founders were the intellectual elites and ruling plutocrats of their time. The taxes they resisted were import taxes, which were the only taxes of the time. Much of their resistance was because of the general activity of smuggling. What really sparked the conflict, which led to the American Revolutionary War, was Great Britain imposing import taxes to help pay for King Williams War (French and Indian War). this is where "Taxation without Representation" came from. One of the issues for our fledgling nation was we had no source of income to support the Federal Government. After federalism was adopted, most income came from import duties, taxes on transportation and taxes on distilled spirits. Libertarianism as it is defined today would leave the founders cold. They understood the need for a strong central government.

Correction: A strong EXTREMELY LIMITED government.

Even mini-Ceasar himself, Alexander Hamilton was confident in his proposed plutocracy because he wrongly believed the federal government would not be able to stretch beyond its consitituuonal limitations.

If he only had known that people like todays liberals would exist.

@Lyle the bankrupt

Here we go again - if anyone is against the liberal point of view, they are then by extension anti-intellectuals. How original.

Kyle I guarantee I can outscore you on any science, math, reading comprehension, or iq test. All you are is, again, a weak parasitic liberal who thinks that a few flowery paragraphs will make up for the fact that he is an inept hateful loser.

And again, your CCAP proves my assessment correct. I check my name on CCAP every year or so out of curiousity - clean.

Now what, Lyle? Is it anti-intellectual to PAY ONES FCKING BILLS?!? I wouldn't put it past you to try to say so.

@oak creek resident...Your comments speak volumes about your intellectual capability.

Oak Creek, don't you get it? The elite liberals of society don't have to pay bills like us hoi polloi, bills are meant for the great unwashed. Lyle is above paying bills, they are a nuisance to royalty.

I don't mind leaving the name calling to them. :) Creep was appropriate because lyle is literally creeping on me. But I can smile and nod to Vicki's weird comments. lol

Only name calling because that ignorant pig labelled me as an idiot. Vicki the fat pig, in one single posting, posted so many lies it made me sick. I guess with the Republicans in control (lol what idiot thinks this?!?) I should be happy right? lol, pig...

These kinds of posts just deteriorate down in a cycle of insults. Why do it?

The level of maturity in this forum is ridiculous.

NOt a single reasonable COnstitutional scholar believes Roe was well written precedent. It was an ideological decision, and is faulty on many fronts.

Murder is not about privacy, the Roe decision allowed murder to occur privately under the guise of a woman's privacy.

Bad example.

Not a single constitutional scholar you favor, perhaps. How about Griswold., which was a previous step in the right to privacy principle?

I don't accept a Constutitional scholar that believes murdering an unborn child is a legal matter.

That's not ideological, it's common sense humanity.

@Edward Willing..."NOT a single reasonable COstitutional scholar believes Roe was well written precedent. It was an ideological decision, and is faulty on many fronts." Edward this is a statement that you can't honestly think passes the critical thinking test. How do you know there isn't even one that doesn't believe that Roe was well written, are you omniscient? Are you the one to determine who is or who is not a reasonable constitutional scholar? I think that if you don't agree with them then you determine they are unreasonable. Just because you don't agree with Roe you have determined it is ideological.

No one is arguing that murder is murder, but pregnancy termination (abortion) is not murder. This is where you go with your extreme ideology. Women, who are the host to the parasitic zygote/fetus, have all the right to their own bodies. Out of one side of your mouth you claim that the government is too intrusive and out of the other side of your mouth you accuse the government of not being intrusive enough in regards to a woman's body.

Edward, were you home-schooled?

@Lyle

Yes, I'm omniscient.

Are you too? We should create a club.

You love trying to deduce everything, on your terms, to "critical thinking" or logic, as you define it. My premise is this: unborn life is life. If a so-called reasonable scholar disagrees, they are not "reasonable' in that subject matter. So it's perfectly accurate.

And if you're arguing about semantics at this point, then I gleefully accept that you aren't intelligent enough to have anything else to debate than how I say things. *check!*

I'm not double tongued, Mr. Ruble. The life you call a "parasitic zygote" is life to me and hundreds of millions of other people. That doesn't make me ideological.

But honestly, I don't care what you think anymore. Take your ball, claim you won the game. I'm sleeping better at night.

Sorry, Edward, but your critical/analytical skills seem a tad under-exercised. Your subjective arguments would not have been acceptable at my public high school, my private high school, and my college. People of equal credibility can and do disagree, that's why we have nine Justices on the Supreme Court. But none of them even based a dissenting opinion on 'because it seems common sense to me'.

@Randy

I was homeschooled, and I'm proud to say I was.

If you have anything negative to say about the way I was raised, you will simply be feeding the stereotype of a liberal without substance.

Go ahead, make my week. Bring it on.

@Edward Willing....I am not debating semantics, but linguistics. Much can be psychologically gleaned from the words someone uses. Unlike you I don't claim omniscience and I must seek information the old fashioned way.

Since there is no way to determine when human life worthy of potential can be determined, to suppose that life begins anytime before acknowledge potential is based on a belief, whether theological or ideological. Now if we want to bring it to a legislative vote, I'm OK with that, at least the majority would rule. But you have to recognise that your deep seated beliefs have no more weight than anyone else.

@Lyle -- I'm not comfortable with a legislative vote (majority rule) at the state level, because we have seen laws in the past that infringe on the Constitutional rights of minorities. And that brings us back to Edward's original statement:

"Alexander Hamilton (someone Lyle might even admire) noted that the Constitution gave an equal. Balance between the two entities - the Federal Government and State governments were meant to give citizens a course of redress against the other should one invade the the personal sphere of the individual."

@Randy1949...I should have made myself clear, by legislative I was referring to federal and through a constitutional amendment only. However, I don't think that it will come to that unless Roe v Wade is overturned or significantly modified by a future SCOTUS. You and I are roughly the same age and we have experienced the history that led to Roe v Wade. It seems that for some reason or other we must fight the same fight over and over. Civil rights, voting rights, etc. One thing I can say is that I wouldn't change my public school education from the 50s and early 60s compared with what these Gen-Xers and younger conservative adults is a clear indication of our education system failure.

@Lyle -- Not just Roe but Griswold as well. I remember when it was illegal in Wisconsin to sell contraceptive pharmaceuticals and devices to unmarried people. I remember segregated bathrooms in the south. I thought we had gotten past all of this nonsense long ago.

I don't know what has gone wrong with public education. I learned to read, spell, and do math under some very primitive conditions, and it left me able to adapt to new technologies as they became available.

"Since there is no way to determine when human life worthy of potential can be determined, to suppose that life begins anytime before acknowledge potential is based on a belief, whether theological or ideological"

For the reasons implied by your own comments, abortion of all kinds is murder. Since that line is nearly impossible for YOU to determine, who are you to just "legislatively" decide? That makes no sense.

By your own logic, you must be pro life from conception. Unless you don't believe in a soul. In which case, your proud claim to be a church goer lies muted.

. Now if we want to bring it to a legislative vote, I'm OK with that, at least the majority would rule. But you have to recognise that your deep seated beliefs have no more weight than anyone else.

@Edward Willing...Concerning being anti-abortion (pro-life) and your stated position; I reject it out of hand. Number 1. as males we have less say in the matter, since it involves women's health. Number 2. the concept of a soul is an esoteric and cannot be determined as when it enters. In my Jewish tradition the animal soul is the soul shared by all living things but does not automatically endow the being with the other elements of human existence. Therefore, my tradition is that the potential is not viable until birth. Up and to that point it is considered a part of the mother and her rights prevail.

@Lyle

You rejecting something I say "out of hand" doesn't surprise me, not does it make me wrong. Number 1 - gender has nothing to do with it. If the child is a life, killing it is murder. Bringing another variable into it is the fundamental problem with liberal thought.

Number 2 - Your tradition is wrong. Your Jewish heritage should also teach you that a woman in ovulation should be sent out of town for a while. So, admittedly, your tradition has some subjectivity to it. When it comes to life, my tradition is there's no subjectivity. Regarding "viability," it is being found to be younger and younger as medical technology advances, that even mid term abortions in the 2nd trimester can be considered murder by even the lousiest of liberal parameters.

Ok, so now we know that:
I'm Conservative and pro-life and don't back down and believe I'm right.
You're Progressive and pro-choice and don't back down and believe you're right.

That about settles it.

We are not talking about an animal here. Though sometimes I think that animals have more of a soul than some human beings. How can anyone say that a fetus that is formed, has a beating heart, moves around and kicks in the womb, is responsive to human voices and outside forces, is not a human being. We had 2 dogs when I became pregnant. One dog started using my belly as a pillow almost immediately after I found out I was pregnant. She reacted, perked her ears, when my baby moved. And my baby reacted when she laid her head on my belly. I slept for almost my entire pregnancy with her using my belly as a pillow. Needless to say they knew each other when we brought our baby home from the hospital.

My cousin had her baby born premature and weighed less than 1 lb ,born at around 7 months. That premie is now a healthy happy adult.

@Mau

...and, at that size is still "legally" abortable.

That apparently makes me "extreme," "theocratic," "narrow-minded," and "traumatized" by my mother as a child, for having opposed such a standard for abortion. Or, for trying to avoid a relative standard at all and just saying no to the whole thing.

@Edward Willing...Men are not invested in the same way with pregnancy in the same way women are. This is an a priori fact. Since it is the woman's body that would be the host, they have a greater vested interest. Since they have a higher vested interest, they should be the ones, not men, to decide whether to continue a pregnancy. A man's vested interest begins with impregnation, but remains secondary until post postpartum. At the point of birth, his vested interest becomes equal to that of the woman. Therefore, the gestation period becomes her concern and hers alone.

To make a correction to your statement about Judaism getting it wrong. You completely misrepresented our tradition. Women were not asked to leave during ovulation or any time during the menstrual cycle. There is a traditional prohibition for having coitus during menstruation and a short period after. Tradition required for the post puberty woman to restrict social contact with men during menses for reasons of ritual purity. Also women are traditionally restricted from attending worship services during menses due to abidance of purity laws.

What is your definition of viability. Does that mean the ability to survive outside of the womb or does it mean neural activity? You want to predicate a definition of murder for anyone who terminates a human life that is viable. What about a spontaneous abortion for a woman who participates in a lifestyle that causes such. Is she guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

@Edward Willing -- "..and, at that size is still "legally" abortable."

Wrong. According to Roe. the state has an interest in protecting fetal life during the third trimester (seven month falls under that) and may outlaw abortion except where the life and health of the mother are at risk.

I'm not debating the abortion issue with two protectors of murder.

Enjoy it yourselves. I'm done.

@Edward, don't lose your moral principles. I was pro-choice until I saw my baby in my womb at 12 weeks. When I held my newborn in my arms in the delivery room, I was so glad we made the choices we did. This summer that baby will be turning 26 and has a beautiful wife. Just think, I could have killed him.

As one of those on the right I would like to reiterate what I have said before. CCAP is a tool that can be misused like any tool. If you have no skills using a table saw- it can cut your arm off. If you do not know the limitations of CCAP- it can make an ass out of you.
I caution rushing to condemn on the basis of a debt issue on CCAP; we do not have all the details or testimony regarding disputed bills. Multiple entries are easy to form an opinion about, but opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

@Craig -- Right, that dog ain't gonna hunt, and Alfred should drop it.

Alfred was referring to 'personal lives' as could be deduced by a record on CCAP. I'm telling Alfred that credit issues are common on both sides of the political argument.

@Alfred...Until things are finally settled in disputed billings, it remains as something on the record. You continue to make assumptions that aren't supported by the actual situation. It seems to me that you are unable to hold your own in the dialogue and attempt to gain some type of advantage by impugning someone's character. Normally that would be considered bullying behavior, but in your case it's a tactic that gains you no ground. If your arguments don't hold up under the weight of clear logic and intellect, then there is nothing you can do to change that. Share your name with us and we'll see what your all about. If I was worried about my past being outed I would have taken your way out and try to hide my identity. Your way is normally the way of the coward. If you tell me where, I'll send you a white feather.

I'll remember that, Alfred. Incidentally, I've never defaulted on a debt of any sort.

I do have a friend who lost his house when he was laid off from his job and two of his unemployment checks were delayed. It's all it takes.

Ummmm... the founders intentions have nothing to do with CCAP or disputed billings.

You're pathetically addicted to debating anything you can get your bored little fingers on. I feel bad for you, actually.

@Edward Willing -- I was responding to this post by Alfred: "Lyle the way we conduct our personal lives says a lot about who are, don't you agree? Your logical fallacies and emotive thinking is part of your generation, there is nothing logical about your posts here, it would take too much time to tear them apart but they are incorrect and the fact that you put your name out there for all of us to see is your own problem and live with the consequences of your actions on CCAP."

If he wanted to attack Lyle's morals and character on the grounds of listings on CCAP, it will turn around to bite him.

"You're pathetically addicted to debating anything you can get your bored little fingers on. I feel bad for you, actually."

How old are you, again?

Randy, I was responding to the entire subject. Not asking for an explanation for your participation in it.

Way off topic here, it's just weird. ;)

Edward: Let me tell you about my CCAP report. I lean far to the right, and Lyle and Randy can verify that.
Several years ago I leased commercial space for a business. After a few years in that location I became unable to work due to a disability. I closed the business, and kept paying my lease until it ran out (several months). I called to have the utilities changed over to the landlord and was told they will do that when the landlord calls them. Even though I was promised they would take care of it, it did not happen. Before I had neurosurgery I wanted this taken care of so my wife would not have to deal with it.
Several months later I get a bill from WE energies sent to my home. I call and tell them this is not my property to no avail. I wind up in court. If someone reads my CCAP without having knowledge, they would assume I am a deadbeat. I even brought this up to the court and was assured this would not be a black mark for me. A 'stipulated dismissal' shows up to this day. Unless one reads the court records, they have no idea of the details.
If anyone wishes to use CCAP, they should have the knowledge needed to understand the system. A long rap sheet may be more telling of an individual, but one or two line items says nothing.
I am not a proponent of removing CCAP access, but those who use it should read the terms of use. ;)

Alfred: Does my example make me a parasite or of low moral character?
Bear in mind I have taken no public assistance while having zero income for nearly three years. I only applied for SSI because I was advised I am required to do so by law, though these cases can take years to decide. I have wiped out personal savings, and dipped into my retirement savings. (paying income taxes AND early withdrawal penalties)
Not a nickel of public assistance, but I do have an entry on CCAP.
Given this and the earlier explaination, does that make me a parasite?

Like i said, I'm both flattered and freaked out at the same time. ;)

" Literally translated, this 'pseudes-onyma' is a 'false name.' A Pseudonym, however, is no 'false name,' for it is in fact appropriate to the one bearing it. The term false name applies, rather, to an impostor...."

Thanks for the laugh. I just about spit my decaff into my Kafka.

I wonder if Bren laughed as well. Hopefully, no herbal tea was spit into Bren’s Nietzsche.

I ,and I assume Bren does as well, actually prefer the following M. H. quote because we each prefer our respective cyber anonymity: “Everyone is the other, and no one is himself.”

BTW, my passive verb usage, when describing Bren's tea spitting, was purely intentional. This is because I do not know if Bren is short for “Brenda” or “Brennan.” Nor, do I care.

So, please put away your red pencil. I would hate to have you damage your screen.

Lol! HUH?!?!?!

Per Nick: "Lyle...: thank you for showing up without rancour."

Per Lyle: "@Edward Willing...Your the gift that just keeps on giving. Your efforts with this is [sic - oops, get the red pencil!] just like your support of Perry, going nowhere fast and going down in flames."

Per Webster's: rancor (noun) - bitter deep-seated ill will.

Per patchreader 123: No rancor here. Do you see any rancor? I don't see any rancor. Nope. None. Nada. Nothing.

@Nick Poulos - It seems to me that any even moderately impartial reader of this post would not come to the conclusion that Lyle has shown up without rancour, nor have most others for that matter. Lyle's very first post was off the topic and insulting to the author. And Bren, like you, criticized those she was opposed to without applying the same standard to those closer to her views (although she did do it respectfully for the most part).

You also criticize participants here as immature and then go on to belittle and insult them. I'm no Tea Partier, and I have never read anything of Edward Willing's before, but you all could at least try to discuss the ideas here and leave the personal attacks, insinuations, and insults aside. If you really care about raising the level of discussion, then try doing it yourself.

MC, agreed.

Nick’s comment appears to be both denigrating and disingenuous. To further illustrate the foregoing, I was going to mention, as you did, that Lyle’s rancorous comment was the first such comment of the discussion, and further mention that the comment included other grammatical errors (i.e., “your” vs. “you’re”) ignored by Nick. However, there is no need. As you have shown, people are smarter than what Nick gives them credit for, and thus will realize these things on their own.

ah yes, Mr Psuedo Intellectual Nick Poulos chimes in....

I should add that the closing portion of my comment above is directed at those on all sides of the discussion, not just those on the left.

"You all could at least try to discuss the ideas here and leave the personal attacks, insinuations, and insults aside. If you really care about raising the level of discussion, then try doing it yourself."

Kafka, Nietzsche, Voltaire, Sartre...these names bring back happy memories of adolescence...along with walking down the same Paris streets as the philosophers and artists...imagining the discourse taking place over coffee and/or absinthe...but then realizing it is impossible to develop a personal philosophy until one has lived...

But along that journey I have learned that keeping an open mind is important. Asking questions of myself and others is important. Sharing correct and honest information that leads to good decision-making is important. Working to promote an environment that encourages suggestions and ideas is important.

Hey sweetheart, you started your entire creed by calling conservatives 'stupid' from an old MIlls quote....if you would please pull your head out of your backside, realize that you called liberals 'stupid' because you failed to grasp the context of the meaning of the words in Mill's time. Good day woman.

:)

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do. It's honestly very difficult to not respond to immaturity when both sides are hiding behind a computer screen. Although, I still prefer intellectual shaming through rhetoric and logic, rather than cheap mud-slinging. ;) It's lazy, and just not as gratifying.

They ARE cute

I like turtles too! Look someone on the blog agrees about something. I would prefer a discussion of turtles to a discussion of various individuals' credit reports, etc.

Of course, if the conversation ever shifted back to the substance of the article, that would be nice too…

I like them too but their credit scores suck.

Not a fan of amphibians, Hoffa?
LOL

@Craig -

Actually, the amphibian discussion may just be one of the only things here that actually make an iota of sense!

@Lyle -

How are you doing?

@JRH...I'm fine, maybe a little punch drunk. Thanks for asking. You seemed to have disappeared, did you have to go out of town on business?

@Lyle -

Definitely no business! Let's just say that I was otherwise engaged most of last Thursday through Monday and that your yenta senses are very much intact ;-)

@JRH...;=D Mozel Tov!

Hey, maybe you guys should just email or call each other…

@Lyle -

Thanks - I really do appreciate that!

@M C -

You're obviously getting the wrong idea here, LOL!