Yeah, I hate it when that happens.

See below for a few additional pearls of wisdom from his comments after I submitted my article on why Obama won’t win the 2008 election:

*** Tag: ”is the pope “gullible” ?? he believes in Global Warming and that we should be good stewards of Gods creation. You and your ilk can keep pizzing on it, if you like, i choose to help the POPE. … You can find your big oil paid weather men and faux news paid “climate shills” to claim different, but the scientific communtiy says otherwise. So does that LIAR (as you call him) the Pope.”

Translation: The pope … I mean POPE … must be accepted as a scientific authority on the matter of global warming, or else you’re calling him a LIAR (no hyperbole here!!). However, when it comes to defining human life at the moment of conception and therefore abortion as murder, well, reasonable people can certainly disagree because, after all, the POPE is no scientific authority.

*** Tag: “ALL the peer reviewed studies on climate change Agree that People DO CONTRIBUTE to it. Not half or three quarters of all peer reviewed studies, ALL OF THEM. 100% agree.”

Translation: Taguba said ALL OF THEM (he even capitalized the words to show he’s serious — SERIOUSLY!!) ALL OF THEM agree 100%. EVERY peer reviewed article, EVERY ONE!! NO EXCEPTIONS!! And yet some of us may still doubt the piercing analysis and evidence he’s offered?? This is SERIOUS!! SERIOUSLY!! What would the POPE say now that you’ve called him a LIAR?? What?? You didn’t read his peer-reviewed article?? SERIOUSLY!!

*** Tag: “People DO CONTRIBUTE to [global warming]. … Do you really think all the factories, all the cars, all the ships, trains, and trucks ont he planet dont contribute ?? seriously ??”

Translation. This is really serious. Just try not to think about the fact that “cause” and “contribute to” are two different concepts. People contribute to lots of things without necessarily “causing” something, or even being the primary contributor. One good Mexican meal won’t hold a candle to your average bovine flatulence, in terms of carbon-based natural methane production. And you don’t even need a 100% peer reviewed article to understand this. Well, most of us understand this, anyway. Only a complete idiot could view something like cyclical climate change from the perspective where people are the constant, and nature is the independent variable, when looking at the notion of causality. Seriously!!

If none of this fails to convince you of the wisdom of tagboy’s analysis, then he has only one thing left for. You’re nothing but a “douchbag stinking retarded vermin with a nose full of coke,” or something like that (see “Why John Edwards’ Affair Matters”). And he says this because he’s SERIOUS. Really!! SERIOUSLY!

There are more tag-isms just as funny, and just as sad, but you get the idea.

Don’t waste any time treating him seriously.

Doh!!

Phillip, you never cease to amaze me. 80-90% of states would outlaw abortion.. that is one of the (if not the) most out of touch statement i have seen from you. and there is an entire library of moronic quotes from you to choose from. HILLARIOUS. sure shows how out of touch the GOP lemming foot soldiers are.

I doubt seriously that all 50 states would outlaw abortion, although I think 80-90% might. California, Massachusettes, NY to name three probably won’t.

Even bad laws made properly must be respected unless and until the public can be educated sufficiently to overturn them. The only entity “imposing/forcing” its will on the people is the Liberal Court.

You are misstating the conservative position on abortion. Yes, many (though not all of us) are against abortion; and some would go so far they would outlaw it top-down no differently than liberals have protected it top-down. However, the conservative position is fundamentally about how the issue is determined; whether it is the prerogative of the people enacted through elected representatives or the prerogative of nine men in robes to determine. The conservative principle would throw out Roe v. Wade so that we would return to where the country was in 1973, neither all pro-abortion nor all pro-life. Rather, at that time, it was left to each state to determine through their elected representatives. Several states already had strong abortion statutes, and many had special circumstance (rape, survival of the mother, &c) provisions in their laws. Women determined to have an abortion at that time, could cross state lines to get one; refuting the contention they were trapped. The trend was increasingly to allow abortion with more states passing provisions allowing doctors to perform abortion. But that wasn’t good enough for the pro-abortion forces, who wanted it all and were willing to trash the Constitution to make it happen faster and to eliminate any and all barriers.

Were Roe thrown out today, we would not automatically revert to 1973, because every state in the union has since enacted abortion-right provisions; and each of these would also have to be overturned. That is unlikely to happen in more than a handful of states and may take a generation or two to sort out. If I were to guess, I’d say the country would eventually become 70-80% abortion legal, but without federal pressure it would no longer be ‘abortion on demand’ and, perhaps, no longer taxpayer-funded except in extreme cases (e.g., rape, illness, extreme-poverty). A handful of states where strong anti-abortion sentiments dominate may restrict abortion to rape and survival. Women would still have the choice, it just wouldn’t be a federal freebie nor an unassailable right.

Substitute “X” for “all abortions”, where X could be any “policy decision” [prohibiting insider trading, making it illegal to throw trash out a car window, making the poll tax illegal, etc.] Now read the sentence again.

According to this logic, by proposing that it is illegal to throw trash out your window, etc. you are “forcing your beliefs on everyone”.

This is why the hyperbolic Left cannot be taken seriously. There is a difference between advocating a policy (like an end to abortion), and (a) bringing that policy into being through the legislative process (where it belongs) or (b) bringing it about through an appointment to the Supreme Court (where it was hijacked), and saying — as AMAI did — that an “advocated” policy you disagree with means that policy is “forced” on you.

The Left wants to criminalize thought. The Right wants to criminalize behavior through the legislative process (which requires public consent). Where the legislative process is hijacked, we’ll make the correct SCOTUS appointments (again secured through the proper legislative/consent process).

When we win by playing by the established ruses, the Left defines this as fascism. When they win by hijacking the legislative process and having the courts impose a decision (which we’re forbidden to change by changing the Courts through elections and the legislative process), the Left defines this as fairness.

Well, how very pot-kettle. It’s the same with just about all of the political parties, the “right” “conservative” ones included. When someone advocates a policy decision be made in which all abortions would be illegal, that is basically forcing their beliefs on everyone. I disagree with that view no matter who is making it.

It’s really too bad that the current republican platform incorporates so many religious views as part of its promise-making. Talk about going backwards…

What a supreme waffle that was. Obama takes it on himself to determine that an infant not successfully aborted (and thus alive by any meaning of the word) is not actually alive. Yet here, when skewered in a public forum, he loses the ability to make the same determination?

This guy’s position(s) are rather like trying to catch a handful of fog. Lotsa luck.