Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Flyover 41 – Paper for the Wiping
Max Ledoux joins us for a discussion about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and governors who won’t answer tough questions about planned parenthood.
Also, listeners are introduced to our very own live audience!
Intro includes music from Ronald Jenkees, and this week’s closing song is from Joy Division.
Published in General
Nice podcast. Terry quoted Pulp Fiction,”that’s your pride messing with you”. Couric’s got ya question was about Palin’s objection to any Supreme Court decision other than Roe v Wade. She didn’t come off that well and I’m sure the left loved it. Nobody was going to beat Obama that election. If we have anyone other than Trump/Bush we are going to win this one.
The Wall Street Journal didn’t credit me for making this argument, but I’ll chalk it up to the possibility that they hadn’t yet listened to today’s episode.
http://ricochet.com/the-next-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-2984252
p.s. Jay, I thought you’d get a kick out of that title. See, I’m very subtly comparing Hillary Clinton with, well … something to be wiped. With paper.
Once again showing that flyover country has it’s finger on the pulse of politics.
Ryan, Terry and Max fun podcast.
My theory abt Trump: Crass and pompous sells today – a direct result of new social media norms. He’s the most successful troll ever. Probably would’ve never worked before now.
First time I’ve heard the Nazi train compartment PP analogy. Its specifically appropriate.
More sound effects!
I didn’t get my invitation to be on this podcast until about 5 minutes ago.
I’m unsure of the stated (or un-stated) goals of Planned Parenthood. But I believe that the stated goal of Nazism’s final solution was the purification of the Aryan race. Aren’t Planned Parenthood’s roots partially founded in the beliefs of Margaret Sanger concerning eugenics? And isn’t’ that the parallel you’re searching for?
@Pemfold: yes, that is a good parallel. I was more referring to the morality of the behavior. Regardless of their goals, they have determined to treat a class of human beings as less than human. This is a mass slaughter of human beings and it is done with the blessings of our federal government. The parallel in action alone is disturbing.
@Max: you have an open invitation. As such, you may consider yourself an elite guest; the tradeoff is that I call for your help with less than 24 hrs notice.
You also outed Claire as a future guest, so now she’s committed or the fanclub will be almost as loud as our studio audience was when you were announced (though perhaps not quite).
By the way, I think that was one of the most awesome endings to your podcast ever. I mean, to be honest, I usually don’t listen all the way to the ending, but this one was pretty awesome.
Also, FYI, if you’re calling across state lines and want to record, you have to observe the laws of the state you’re in, the laws of the state the person you’re calling is in, and also federal laws. And you never told me this “podcast” was going to be recorded, Ryan, so I’ll see you in court, you scoundrel!
Is it even legal for them to detain the Kentucky clerk like they’re doing? Currently, from what I’ve read, she’s being kept in jail until she “complies”. Isn’t that essentially making her a political prisoner?
Also, yay! for me finally listening to a podcast on the day it’s been posted!
She’s being held for contempt of court, isn’t she? That is perfectly legal.
Regarding Max’s point about viability I’ve often invoked the heap concept I heard about once in a philosophy class. (A quick Google search reveals it as the Sorites paradox).
It seems problematic to me once you try to pin down the actual moment when abortion shouldn’t be allowed. After 20 weeks the baby has rights, but 20 minutes before that it was just a blob of tissue?
And I thoroughly enjoyed the live audience.
Believe me , we’ve been here before, the media is already gearing up for any testimony by ‘Hillary the poor victim’, the issue will be the questioners ‘tone’ rather than any heap of fertilizer uttered by her. Also you’ve got to know the Democrat operatives/ press corps is even now combing through the lives of committee members for any hint of infidelity , indiscretion, a 30 year old DUI, or even a dog on the roof or a high school prank. we will be geared up for the great take down and instead it’ll sound like ‘ We’re sorry , Madam Secretary , how may we help erase this terrible stain from your glorious , impeccable record of helping the less fortunate’ . Then blaring headlines ‘ Hillary clean as a whistle!’ ‘ Gowdy under indictment for middle school prank, resigns from congress ‘ . Hmmm Do I sound a little bitter? 25 years of the Clinton Circus will do that, I guess.
But its a federal court… so the law gets murkier.
that’s why I’d put it at the date of conception, frankly.
I believe Terry made the point in a much earlier podcast are that the only real lines you can draw are conception and birth.
Terry also taught me about a form of birth control that only costs a quarter, but my wife told me never to bring it up around any women because they would be extremely offended.
Hold the quarter between their knees?
I thought that was trolling.
I think camp Hillary is doing their best to avoid saying specifically that the server was cleaned with program that completely eradicates the previous data. Just deleting stuff and even formatting the hard drive won’t get rid of the data. Programs exist which write a 1 and a 0 at each physical location on the disk multiple times ensuring that nothing remains from what was there previously. If Clinton’s people didn’t do that then the FBI’s computer people will be able to get a lot of the data back. If they did use such a program then they went to extraordinary lengths to make the hardware useless as evidence of a crime. No one does that without a reason.
Bingo.
The same reasoning could be applied to many, many laws. An eighteen-year-old is capable of consenting to sex, but a seventeen-year-and-three-hundred-sixty-four-day-old doesn’t possess the same capacity? There are conservatives who view taxation as theft if it reaches a certain point, but where is that point? How convincing could you make the argument that a 5% tax rate is just, but a 5.5% rate is robbery?
Also, how sad is it that SJW’s have made me shudder every time I hear the word “problematic”?
It is obvious that there are times when a seemingly arbitrary line must be drawn, and that is inevitably the stance abortion supporters take. Part of me just hopes that it might be possible to work backwards with some of those people to convince them that the ending of a human life should not be one of those times.
And how about “untenable”? It has a different nuance to it, but if it keeps the shudders away…
Sure, but we’re talking about life or death with abortion.
@Basil, trolling is not because of a position. I think you and I are pretty close on the underlying issue. When I suggested that you were trolling, that was because you continued to insist that Tom was being insincere by trying to draw the line elsewhere. I think the principle of charity applies to people arguing in good faith, even when they may be wrong.
@Cat, I agree that with something like tax rates, we would say 40% is robbery, 2% is fair (all figures hypothetical) and the rest is a grey area. Same with voting, driving, consensual sex, etc… But Jacob and max are correct that this is one instance where we don’t have the luxury of drawing arbitrary lines. Life and death is simply different.
Sarah Palin is an embarrassment. Kathleen Parker had it right. The interviews with Couric were painful. After answering, “All of them,” to the question, “What magazines and papers do you read?” Palin doubled-down, insisting that it was an elitist jab at her intelligence, rather than, you know, a mundane inquiry into what publications influence her thinking. How easy would it have been to say, “National Review” or “Commentary“? She could have took the safe road with The New York Times or The New Republic. Or shown open-mindedness with The Nation. Make a little joke by answering, “Mad Magazine” or “The Onion“. Instead she staked her position as a petulant simpleton, and a damn proud one.
And age of consent laws are the difference between a person being convicted of rape, doing hard time and being registered as a sex offender. Tax rates are the difference between contributing your fair share and having your wealth unjustly removed by force.