Sunday funnies
by Gary Varvel…
by Bob Gorrell…
And on another note, a video tearing through the blogosphere… when introducing Obama in PA on August 29, was Biden drunk?
Aug.31, 2008 8:15 am |
Cartoons |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They should rename this the Biden-Obama campaign.
It is scary to think he is not drunk because he sounds and acts like I do when I catch a buzz at the bar after a softball game. But even if he’s not, why should we not start the rumor?
After all, the nut jobs on the left have the internet going crazy that Twig is really not Sarah’s baby but her daughter. At least there is more evidence that Biden is drunk and it doesn’t require believing in another elaborate conspiracy.
I love that first cartoon…. to me, the Palin announcement blew the DNC completely out of the water…. mega star and all.
Personally I love the second cartoon: I mean their policies are those of a jackass!
I can’t really tell if Biden is drunk – his speech sounds slurred but I’ve never heard the man before so what do I know. He sure is long-winded about himself. He could put that to good use….
The problem with the first cartoon is that the it doesn’t show things in the proper scale. Obama and Biden are moral midgets compared to McCain and Palin. But then I realize that if the cartoonist did draw them to scale you wouldn’t be able to see the tiny specks that Obama and Biden are.
Whether Biden is drunk or not is not known for sure, however, my guess is that he’s had a few. It is likely his wife knows for sure and the Obama’s suspect it. You can’t be standig that close to someone and listen to them talk and not notice the bloodshot eyes, the physical nuance changes, the wisp of alcohol on the breath.
This should also gives us deep, deep concern. Did Obama know that Biden has a drinking problem (if he does)? If he knew, did he select him anyway and why did he select him? Does this given us some clues as to the effects of not having a father figure in the home? If he didn’t know, why not? Do we want a man who did not have a father in the home as our leader as this may point to some sort of emotional trauma suffered? Is this why Barack hung with such wierdos like Wright and Ayers? Was he is search of a father?
What does the fact that Barack did not support the Born Alice Infant Protection Act reveal about who he is – a very, very conflicted man?
These are very, very dangerous times we live and we do not want a mentally ill person in the White House.
I just love how cute McCain looks in the first one. I dunno…maybe I don’t find the humor in the second one because I’m a moderate conservative…
HisMan, we already have a mentally ill person in the White House. I have seen several highly probable manifestations of long-term aftereffects from GWB’s many-year-long all-day every-day cocaine habit on TV. Recurrent episodes of sudden non-awareness of his surroundings and what is appropriate to say or do. Those times on Letterman’s “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches” routine when he (GWB) suddenly forgets what he’s talking about or to whom, or says something on a different topic. That time he dried his hands on a woman’s skirt.
Also, John McCain’s mental health is at very least an open question. His pattern of seeing all situations as excuses for picking fights, even with his allies, suggests lingering aftereffects of his long confinement and torture. An unresolved martyr complex.
Yes, Biden had a few.
SoMG,
GWB may not be the best orator, I’ll give you that. But, he is sound mentally and able to deal with alot of stress with grace, and he has never waffeled on his core beliefs and positions. SoMG, step out of the liberal Manhatten world and into the real one. After GW leaves office, you and your liberal buddies will have to into counseling to deal with your Bush derangement syndrome. Take Letterman with you.
Yeah, Bush using cocaine is about as likely as the Twig story. I hope all the libs go the polling booth in November looking to vote for the guy running against Bush. When they find out Bush isn’t on the ballot they’ll whoop it up and celebrate without ever voting.
Yes, SoMG:
And we now know why you can abort babies without so much as a flinch; ’cause you think there all just a wad of fingernails (see bathing suit post).
(hook, line, and sinker)
Zee, please explain why GWB had Scott McClellan tell the public that he (GWB) “doesn’t remember” whether or not he used coke. (Actually it could be true.)
This was recently posted on the bathing suit article: I can’t stop laughing.
“Eh. That’s all I have to say about SoMG’s warped world view. I feel kinda sorry for him though…knowing that your mother would’ve had no qualms with killing you if your timing had just been a little different must surely have a negative impact on a child’s mental well-being.
Posted by: xalisae at August 31, 2008 9:43 AM”
On the other hand, the idea that your mother grew you because of her belief in a supernatural entity, rather than because she wanted you, could also have a negative effect on your well-being.
About the second one, do you really think gay couples are having abortions? How did they get pregnant? Homosexual couples are the same sex, two men or two women, and therefore cannot get pregnant hence cannot abort anything. If a lesbian couple goes through the huge expensive hassle that is artificial insemination why would they go and abort? They obviously wanted the baby, they purposely became pregnant.
SoMG,
GWB may not be the best orator, I’ll give you that. But, he is sound mentally and able to deal with alot of stress with grace, and he has never waffeled on his core beliefs and positions. SoMG, step out of the liberal Manhatten world and into the real one. After GW leaves office, you and your liberal buddies will have to into counseling to deal with your Bush derangement syndrome. Take Letterman with you.
Posted by: Jasper at August 31, 2008 10:28 AM
I wholeheartedly agree, Jasper!
Somg, do you really think that if W had used coke he would tell SM he doesn’t remember? Bush is a liar isn’t he? He can’t be believed when he says hello, right? So why wouldn’t he just lie and tell SM he didn’t do coke? Libs like to just believe the worst about people with an R behind their name.
Obama admitted to using drugs as well. Where’s the outrage?
What’s your excuse SoMG? Sucking a little too much of that laughing gas after hours, hmmmmm?
Look, it is obvious he has tipped at least six to nine in the past three hours before appearing, and the way he carries it you can tell it is a regular thing.
“On the other hand, the idea that your mother grew you because of her belief in a supernatural entity, rather than because she wanted you, could also have a negative effect on your well-being.
Posted by: SoMG at August 31, 2008 10:51 AM”
This is a logical retort? And you actually paid good, hard earned money to the school you got that framed license to kill certificate from? I’d be asking for a full refund.
SoMG, it’s not enough that a child is wanted — a child must be welcomed. To be wanted implies that one’s existence is dependent upon the subjective desire of another human being. To be welcomed implies that one’s existence is rejoiced in regardless of whether it was planned or not.
TruthyToothy:
Very, very well said.
Obama has got to be pissed.
Look at Obama’s body language….it’s very, very telling. See how he withdraws from Bibing, I mean Biden.
SoMG, it’s not enough that a child is wanted — a child must be welcomed. To be wanted implies that one’s existence is dependent upon the subjective desire of another human being. To be welcomed implies that one’s existence is rejoiced in regardless of whether it was planned or not.
Posted by: Eileen at August 31, 2008 11:10 AM
Eileen, YES!
Zee, your joke is funny but my question was serious. If GWB didn’t use coke, why won’t he say so?
I think you know the answer.
HisMan, it doesn’t bother me who used coke provided: 1. He’s honest about it, and 2. It doesn’t have long-term aftereffects on his mental fitness.
In GWB’s case, neither 1 nor 2 is true.
Eileen, you wrote: “SoMG, it’s not enough that a child is wanted ”
“Not enough” for whom?
SOMG, for anyone.
SoMG:
Right. If GWB admitted cocaine use you would now support him? I don’t think so.
And to see how GWB handled 9/11, the war, etc. and that while being mercilessly criticied by Liberals without attacking back, demonstrates his depth of character and mental stability.
So to present a “conditional” as evidence for your lack of support is ludicrous.
Obama is a pro-abort and that’s one reason enough to not vote for him.
And Biden, if the only thing he ever did wrong was to be a pro-abort I wouldn’t vote for him either.
Stick to the issue.
Probably, SoMG. I kinda guess that from my mom’s screwed up and devoutly Catholic family. That’s why I never get my reasons not to kill my kids (or conceive them in the first place) from God. I just try to think of things from the kid’s point of view. “Hmmm…If I asked my son or daughter a few years from now if it would be ok to kill them…what do I think they would say?” It’s pretty easy from there. See, part of having a good relationship with another human (particularly your kids) is compassion/understanding.
Heard a great line today…
***If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?***
Mike
Because I believe it’s about as hinest as John McCain saying 5 million is rich. If he said it there are a dozen ways to put that in a different context.
I know it’s easy for people of limited brain power to believe in things like Bush had the twin towers destroyed and he’s a coke head without hundreds of people that cover him every day not knowing.
Het SoMG, the X-Files is not real!
HisMan, if GWB admitted his coke habit I would still oppose him, but I would have one fewer reason for doing so.
Did you say you are actually proud of GWB’s reaction to 9111 and of his handling of the war in Iraq? Wow. His reaction to 9111 was to start a war against someone who had nothing to do with it, and to restrict the rights of US citizens and make the USA more like a terrorist state by allowing interrogation under torture– just what the terrorists hoped he’d do. As far as handling the war, even his strongest supporters admit he handled it as badly as any war has been handled in US history. Why do you think he fired Donald Rumsfeld?
All while “being mercilessly criticized by liberals”. What a tough guy! (sarcasm) Gotta watch out for those liberals or they’ll criticize you before you know it! And did you actually say the employer of Karl Rove didn’t attack back?
I think I know what your problem is. You have been living in a parallel universe for the past eight years and you have only recently returned to this one.
SoMG, how do you explain the fact that Obama can not speak articulately without a rehearsed speech or the teleprompter?
X, try not to allow the behavior or problems of your family to influence a belief or unbelief in God. There are also people of great faith who try to actually live it — Mother Teresa of Calcutta, for example.
SoMG:
Had President Bush not taken the war to Iraq, God only knows what other attacks would have occurred on our soils. Perhaps a biological attack on LA? How about nuclear attack on New York, LA, or Chicago or fill in the blank?
Let’s see. Muslim extremists entrenched in and funded by a country with a mad man leader like Saddam Hussein, emboldened by a retreating America, instead of being confronted, weeded out and eliminated by an America that won’t back down from murdereres. Brilliant!
And you want to elect a man who, had he been in office during 9/11 would have done what? Turned 9/11 it into a court action while he watched our country being destroyed?
Perhaps this is what you really want SoMG, like your liberal cohorts, destroy America so she can be resurrected as a socialist country.
No, SoMG it is you who lives in a dream world where innocent babies can be legally and wantonly murdered and evil is not confronted. In fact, SoMG, you represent a more grave danger to this country than any Muslim terrorist. Why?
Because what you do, the shedding of innocent blood that pollutes our land, foolishly tempts Christ and attempts to provoke the heart of God to answer the cries of that blood for vengeance. Yes, SoMG, it is a very, very dangerous thing to grieve thw Holy Spirit and to attempt to cause such heartache for the Creator.
No worries though, you can do no such thing. Satan has been trying for milleniums and is still a loser.
I definitely don’t think Biden was drunk. Just excited and maybe a little nervous with the whole country watching him.
Zee, you have now tried to avoid my question TWICE by hiding behind jokes. But as I said, my question was serious. If GWB didn’t use coke, why won’t he say so? If you don’t give a serious answer this time, I can only conclude that you don’t have one. In which case, why not just admit it?
Eileen, you asked “how do you explain the fact that Obama can not speak articulately without a rehearsed speech or the teleprompter?”
I don’t explain that; I deny it. I’ve seen Obama give very articulate, intelligent off-the-cuff talks on complex questions, and he’s clear as a bell in interviews. His weakness is he’s not used to dumbing down enough to effectively work a crowd. When he does, he goes too far and we get something TOO dumb like “Yes we can!”. He is naturally inclined to ideas, not soundbites. John Kerry had a similar problem and so did Hillary. This is in fact the main reason I always recommend against running Senators for Prez. If they talk like they think they’re perceived as “elitist”. Nuance is smeared as flip-floppery.
I think I can diagnose your problem: you have a form of aphasia which causes you to say “Obama” when you mean “McCain”. McCain seems to be doing a little better these days at controlling his obvious reading-the-teleprompter squint than he was before. Maybe his handlers have installed bigger teleprompters. When you ask McCain questions without a teleprompter he refers you to his handlers, as when he was asked whether or not he believes condoms prevent the spread of STIs, remember? He does this not because he’s unsure what he believes (he’s not) but because he has trouble remembering which of his core beliefs he can share with the public without scaring them away.
SoMG,
You are deluding yourself.
Wow the weirdest things, I was looking up beaches in RI and they had these little symbols like a cocktail glass with a red line through it for no drinking, a dog with a red line through it for no pets, a smiley face for children’s activities but then they had this couple holding a baby and a red line crossing out the baby. What could that mean? No children?
*We confiscate babies*
HisMan, you wrote: “Had President Bush not taken the war to Iraq, God only knows what other attacks would have occurred on our soils. Perhaps a biological attack on LA? How about nuclear attack on New York, LA, or Chicago or fill in the blank?”
Oh yeah, the invasion of Iraq prevented all these things. And more–maybe if GWB hadn’t invaded Iraq then Earth would have been hit by a comet!
You wrote: “Let’s see. Muslim extremists entrenched in and funded by a country with a mad man leader like Saddam Hussein, ”
So why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? At least Saddam’s government was a secular one.
You wrote: “…emboldened by a retreating America, instead of being confronted, weeded out and eliminated”
Yeah. Knocking over Saddam really “weeded out and eliminated” muslim radicals. Sure.
***If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?***
Mike
Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2008 11:36 AM
I know the answer: just in case life REALLY does begin at conception!
***you guys are allowing somg to hijack the thread again.
Just came from Mass and our priest reiterated the teaching of the Catholic church on abortion and that Catholics may not make the “choice” to support abortion in any manner. If so, they cannot present themselves for Holy Communion! Yes!!! I love my priest!
Eileen, one of is. Have you ever seen, heard, or read an IN DEPTH interview with Obama?
SoMG:
Hysteria as a replacement for logic is a loser.
Unfortunately, we need a revision to the first cartoon ~ Hurricane Gustav to the left of McCain stealing his thunder.
No worries though. I’m confident that McCain will be the president elect come November. He made a wise decision in selecting Sarah Palin.
Meanwhile, my prayers are with our fellow brothers and sisters of the Gulf Coast.
“If GWB didn’t use coke, why won’t he say so?”
For the same reason he’s never said he’s seen bigfoot. Because I don’t think he ever did and I can not think of a reason why it would ever come up in a conversation with SM. Was SM going over points that would come up in a press conference and he thought Bush’s cocaine use would come up? Get real! It wasn’t like Helen Thomas was gong to whip out some pictures of Bush snorting a line and ask him to explain it. If the press secretary can’t handle those questions he doesn’t deserve his paycheck. The first time there is credible evidence about Bush using cocaine he’ll have to answer the question.
And no, dailykos is beneath a credible source.
Happy now?
Zee, no, that doesn’t explain why he told McClellan to say “he doesn’t remember” rather than “no”.
You “get real”. Every candidate has to answer this question these days.
I’ve just emailed Raymond Arroyo of EWTN’s “The World Over Live” news show to see if he can attempt to secure an interview with Gov. Palin.
Prolifers, even if you have never heard of him, contact him anyways. He hosts a current events show on the catholic channel and is a concise and articulate host/interviewer. This network is seen worldwide, and has a major viewership in the States. Hint: Catholic vote.
http://www.raymondarroyo.com/contactraymond.html
I’ll try again and say it really slow.
I don’t think he said it!
Got any more horses you want to beat or can you only go off topic?
SoMG,
I am enjoying reading your posts in this thread!
Zee, you think Scott McClellan was lying about it?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mcclellan-on-bu.html
HisMan, it doesn’t bother me who used coke provided: 1. He’s honest about it, and 2. It doesn’t have long-term aftereffects on his mental fitness.
Posted by SoMG
SoMG,
You might need to “refine” the way you speak about Obama’s coke usage. The coke he used was processed, cooked with methamphetamine and much more powerful than the coke you are thinking of. When it is smoked in that form it CAN have long-lasting effects, though I don’t wish those effects on Obama or anyone else. WHich means
1) He isn’t being completely honest about it and 2) It can have long lasting effects on temperment and a kind of “short-circuiting” of the brain from time-to-time.
“Truthseeker”, I’ll worry about that if and when I see signs of neuro-deficits in Obama’s behavior.
SoMG:
Before or after he elected?
Unbelievable!
Yeah. Knocking over Saddam really “weeded out and eliminated” muslim radicals. Sure.
Posted by: SoMG at August 31, 2008 12:16 PM
SoMG, In Iraq it is a Sunni movement known as the “Awakening Council”. It is public knowledge that they are weeding out and eliminating muslim radicals (specifically AlQuaeda). Had you never heard of them?
“Truthseeker”, I’ll worry about that if and when I see signs of neuro-deficits in Obama’s behavior.
Posted by: SoMG at August 31, 2008 2:13 PM
One sign may be his inability to speak with any specificity or detail about things.
And with regard to honesty, I don’t see him as being an hnest person at all. He has been unable to admit being wrong about any of his positions he had ever taken, that is dishonesty.
Let’s take another whack at the horse.
Yes, I do not believe SM.
Patricia @ 12:20,
Just came from Mass and our priest reiterated the teaching of the Catholic church on abortion and that Catholics may not make the “choice” to support abortion in any manner. If so, they cannot present themselves for Holy Communion! Yes!!! I love my priest!
I love your priest too!
———–
Carder,
You’re right, Raymond Arroyo is an awesome interviewer for the Catholic Channel, EWTN. For those of us that don’t get EWTN with our basic Comcast cable service anymore, could you keep us up to date on anything exciting over there? Thanks!
———–
Katrina meant “cleansing”. We all know what happened there. The question remains as to whether the leaders in Loisiana got the message regarding gambling, drinking and immorality.
Gustav means “God’s staff”.
Biblically, the staff was a symbol of God’s power and sovereignty as in Moses turning the staff into a snake as evidence that he was speaking for God and again when Moses raised the staff and the Red Sea parted.
Perhaps God will be showing His power or make a statement with “Gustav”.
We’ll know shortly.
Is George Bush running for a third term? In other words, do we care anymore about his personal life? I certainly don’t.
And SoMG,
Christianity is a religion for ALL, including salvation for even the gravest of sinners, but for a Christian to have so little comapssion for the most vulnerable in our society, even the newborn. And to support policies that condone the extermination of same, as he see’s fit to promote his own political agenda, is a dishonest Christian. Obama is a man of very little character or conviction. A panderer. And dishonesty is a part of his personna.
Gustav means “God’s staff”.
Well, well, well. Very interesting, Hisman. I don’t wish harm to anyone as a result of this hurricane. I hope it miraculously dissipates into thin air. But it makes one think…
quit letting me post on swimsuit thread, so here I am. Ummm…wtf, SoMG…YOU are the one who used the transfusion/transplant analogy in the first place…now you’re saying it no longer applies because it doesn’t prove your arguement? hahahahaha. An organ transplant qualifies as significant trauma to both parties, and I’m pretty sure no parent wills their child to require such intervention…they still do it because it’s the responsible, compassionate thing to do for one’s child. I think there’s much less consent involved in a case like that than in a pregnancy, seeing as how typically one consents to the act responsible for the child’s presence within them to begin with…You can’t change the premise of YOUR argument because you failed, dude.
Maybe it will, Janet. Sometimes you can make more of a statement by NOT doing something than vice versa.
X,
Live Long and Prosper on this thread
.\\//
Janet:
I agree. My prayer is that the staff also be used as that of a loving and merciful shepherd which is used not to punish but to beat back predators (abortionist wolves) and keep the sheep from straying and being lost (Catholic and Protestant Christans that would vote for Obama).
Thanks, ts…but it doesn’t make much of a difference. Someone like SoMG begins with the notion that it is ok to kill babies, then attempts to shape their world to suit that notion, especially because now he has not only a moral and emotional stake in it being so (his mother), but also a financial one (his career). I don’t expect to gain any ground with him. At this point, I just view this as a game designed to help me strengthen my argument and give me perspective.
Alan Colmes just took down his blog where he alleged Palin is a bad mom
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=john-mccain-chooses-a-running
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183509&title=Barack-Obama:-He-Completes-Us
another great one, this time one about Obama
http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0744/
this is just madness
Xalisae, I think you may be confused about what I’m saying. You wrote: “YOU are the one who used the transfusion/transplant analogy in the first place…now you’re saying it no longer applies because it doesn’t prove your arguement? ”
No, not at all. And it’s not an analogy; it’s a simile. Abortion is LIKE killing by withholding transplantable/transfusable tissue in that one person’s right to dispose of what is inside his/her body as (s)he chooses, and to avoid medical/surgical trauma even when it is necessary for someone else’s right to life, causes another person’s death.
If you think body-ownership DOESN’T justify abortion, then you have to explain why it DOES justify killing by withholding transfusable/transplantable tissue, which is an observed fact. You can’t say because the patient is a stranger, because it justifies withholding t/tt even from your child, who is not a stranger. You can’t say because directly killing is different from allowing to die, because if you do I’ll offer to pinch shut the umbilicus and allow the fetus to die rather than killing it directly, or deliver it intact when it’s way to premature to live and let it die, or attack the placenta or the uterine-placental interface with drugs, or whatever; besides, it makes no difference in the end for the fetus. You can’t use Oliver’s argument that organs are “inherent in the DNA” and therefore not required for donation because body-ownership protects your non-inherent-in-DNA organs such as internal prostheses implanted earlier.
My dad would totally eat that. I would totally gripe at him for doing so.
The real “Hurricane Gustav” was Gustav Neidlinger, the greatest performer of Wagnerian “howling-and-spitting type” bass-baritone villians such as Alberich and Klingsor from the early ’50s until the mid ’60s. He even manages to sound like one when he sings Beethoven’s 9th Symphony or Bach’s B-Minor Mass.
If you think body-ownership DOESN’T justify abortion, then you have to explain why it DOES justify killing by withholding transfusable/transplantable tissue, which is an observed fact.
Posted by: SoMG at August 31, 2008 3:59 PM
Why does body ownership have to justify killing at all? What the hell are you talking about?
“Hurricane Gustav”: click here
http://www.amazon.com/Das-Rheingold-Vierte-Szene-Alberich/dp/B0013GJ92U/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1220217742&sr=8-11
“Truthseeker”, body-ownership is what justifies you in killing someone by withholding potentially life-saving organ or blood donations from them. It’s what prevents the government from forcing you to donate.
Body ownership
An unborn baby has a body which he or she owns, yet is forced to die for another.
Nobody in society has ever tried to rationally argue that you killing someone by withholding your organs from them? Again, what the hell are you talking about?
LOL x I know several people who would eat that–and mainly because I’m sure the nutritional value of most Denny’s meals is comparable (they just don’t have a label).
Gustav means “God’s staff”.
Well, well, well. Very interesting, Hisman. I don’t wish harm to anyone as a result of this hurricane. I hope it miraculously dissipates into thin air. But it makes one think…
Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2008 2:44 PM
Janet, it does make one wonder, doesn’t it? I understand that Gustav is now headed for New Orleans. I truly feel sorry for the people of this city. Apparently the strong side of Gustav will hit the city this time.
Why does body ownership have to justify killing at all? What the hell are you talking about?
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 4:20 PM
because truthseeker, it’s the ONLY thing that the proaborts have left in their argument to justify killing little helpless babies.
ya know, it’s kinda like a little child stamping their foot and screaming, “But it’s my body, it’s my body…”
“The real “Hurricane Gustav” was Gustav Neidlinger, the greatest performer of Wagnerian “howling-and-spitting type” bass-baritone villians such as Alberich and Klingsor from the early ’50s until the mid ’60s. He even manages to sound like one when he sings Beethoven’s 9th Symphony or Bach’s B-Minor Mass.
Posted by: SoMG at August 31, 2008 4:12 PM”
SobamaMG:
Please go to Louisiana and say that to all the people who are now having to evacuate. I think you’d be aborted pretty quickly.
80% of calories in a Denny’s meal come from fat, usually animal fat or hydrogenated oils.
Hungry anyone?
PCRM has a campaign to make restaurants comply with the California law requiring disclosure of carcinogens in foods they serve. Truth in labeling is a reasonable requirement.
Patricia, you wrote: “ya know, it’s kinda like a little child stamping their foot and screaming, “But it’s my body, it’s my body…””
The same could be said of anyone who opposes laws that would mandate life-saving tissue donations. Or for that matter anyone who opposes slavery. “It’s my body” is not a childish slogan.
“Truthseeker” I do not understand the grammar of your sentence “Nobody in society has ever tried to rationally argue that you killing someone by withholding your organs from them? ”
Please clarify.
Meanwhile, please tell me this: have you always donated all the blood you could possibly donate, and all the transplantable tissue you can live comfortably without (one kidney and part of your liver at least)? If no, then you have made a decision which has caused the deaths of patients whose lives could have been saved by those donations. You have killed people by withholding what they needed in order to live, most likely for reasons of convenience, or in order to avoid a surgical procedure that is much easier than childbirth. Now please explain: what principle justifies you in killing patients by withholding the transplantable/transfusable tissues they need? Do you claim the patients are just blobs of tissue? Or might there be (*gasp*) something else, a principle that justifies you in deciding for yourself what to do with parts of your body even if your decision kills someone?
HisMan, you wrote: “Please go to Louisiana and say that to all the people who are now having to evacuate. I think you’d be aborted pretty quickly.”
If they have to evacuate, why don’t they just go to the bathroom?
In fact, Patricia, “It’s my body” is a pretty fair translation of Habeas Corpus which is a central Constitutional and pre-Constitutional principle in the USA. Or at least it was until Bush/Cheney.
It could be that society might force a defendant to give a plaintiff a life saving organ, even if it meant the extreme detriment of the defendant. For example, if a psychopath were to kidnap you and tie you up and cut out your liver without your permission so that he could get off dialysis and have said liver transplanted into himself, and he put you on a dialysis machine to keep you alive. You would have legal recourse to get awarded the defendant’s liver even though it violates his bodily domain? Is that what you meant SoMG? People in society are expected to carry a certain amount of responsibility for their actions.
“Truthseeker” I do not understand the grammar of your sentence
“Give me a specific example of where somebody in society has ever tried to rationally argue that you “are” killing someone by withholding your organs from them? ”
I dreamt up an unrealistic example in my previous post above, maybe you can detail some more realistic examples.
“Truthseeker”, I am not talking about a hypothetical criminal who causes someone’s need for a transplant. I’m talking about YOU. I suspect you are a deliberate killer. Of human beings.
Have you always donated all the blood you could possibly donate, and all the transplantable tissue you can live comfortably without (one kidney and part of your liver at least)? If no, then you have freely made a decision which has caused the deaths of patients whose lives could have been saved by those donations. You have killed people by withholding what they needed in order to live, most likely for reasons of convenience, or in order to avoid a surgical procedure that is much easier than childbirth. I ask you again, what principle justifies you in killing patients by withholding the transplantable/transfusable tissues they need? Do you claim the patients are just blobs of tissue? Or might there be (*gasp*) something else, a principle that justifies you in deciding for yourself what to do with parts of your body even if your decision kills someone?
Janet,
I believe you can still watch EWTN Television via the internet at EWTN.com.
I would like to see Fr. Frank Pavone or Raymond Arroyo interview Sarah Palin, Alveda King and Jill Stanek at the same time.
Also, I think Arroyo lives in New Orleans.
Mike
All,
Gustav means “God’s Staff”.
Biblically, the staff was a symbol of God’s power and sovereignty as in Moses turning the staff into a snake as evidence that he was speaking for God and again when Moses raised the staff and the Red Sea parted.
Perhaps God will be showing His power or make a statement with “Gustav”.
We’ll know shortly.
—-
On television they showed the picture of the hurricane moving. The eye of the storm looked like a baby moving about in the mother’s womb. It was like watching a live Ultrasound. It really made me think even more?
God has the power to protect us from anything. Does the fact the United States continues to kill over 50 million unborn babies result in God removing some of his protections?
Mike
SoMG,
Explain to me why it is legal to cavity searches, but it is not legal to take the organ of a an organ thief.
SoMG: “You can’t use Oliver’s argument that organs are “inherent in the DNA” and therefore not required for donation because body-ownership protects your non-inherent-in-DNA organs such as internal prostheses implanted earlier.”
You also cant force a parent to not buy property to provide for a bone marrow transplant either. Does this mean that the parent is not required to sacrifice any property?
A parent does not need to sacrifice all of a right in order to sacrifice a portion. Lets say that a parent does not need to give an organ because an organ cannot be replaced…therefore giving it significance. A mother is still required to breast feed if formula is not an option. Obviously there are some rights to bodily autonomy that are sacrificed to our children.
SoMG at August 31, 2008 5:24 PM
1) I do donate blood whenever possible and the Red Cross cals me every couple of weeks to ask if I can donate.
2) No I have not donated a kidney or a part of my liver on a pro-active basis but if the Lord put me in a position where it was needed, especially by someone I felf responsibility for, I would donate in a second and I would completely understand if the state required it of me. For example, if I was drunk driving and damaged somebody’s liver by crashing into them, then they should have a right to a piece of MY liver in order to save their life. It is about responsibility for your actions. Do you understand?
Please go to Louisiana and say that to all the people who are now having to evacuate. I think you’d be aborted pretty quickly.
Posted by: HisMan at August 31, 2008 4:40 PM
too funny HisMan
Have a nice evening somg – not interested in talking to you!
SoMG,
In case you missed my answer to your question, the concept/principle involved here is called
RESPONSIBILITY!
If you were drunk driving there is a considerable possibility that they wouldnt want your liver…;)
TS brought up a good point again about the whole organ thing. You can only donate an organ part once, which does make it significantly different than the “blood stream to blood stream” transfer you are so upset about.
I will say that the blood donation thing does bother me though. In a certain sense I am starting to think that, as you essentially suggested in an earlier post, that the sacrifice is so nugatory, especially in light of the benefits, that maybe blood donations should be manditory for parents who maintain custody of their children. I dont think that is actually very unreasonable at all. In fact, I have a feeling you wouldnt think so either and that maybe we can start a new joint blog.
Oliver and Truthseeker:
Why even bother?
It’s a total waste of time debating with SobamaMG.
You see, even if we believe SobamaMG is a doctor, trying to explain that abortion is murder and therfore extremely immoral, is above his/her pay grade. That’s what all Libs and pro-aborts say now: “It’s a choice and above my pay grade”.
Think about this too. If SobamaMG was a really, really good doctor there’d be no time to be blogging. So, he/she is probably on call and does about 7 to 10 abortions a week and get’s paid about $250.00 to $300.00 for each one. That means he/she is making about $1,750 to $3,000 per week. Not bad, but not very good money for a doctor.
My guess he/she was near the bottom of the class and a truly classy hospital or university health center wouldn’t touch him/her.
So s/he comes on this web site and makes her/himself out to be some kind of hero when in reality s/he’s a dismal failure as a medical professional. Also, I might add that it’s highly doubtful that SobamaMG is really a doc at all.
And let’s not forget, if R v. W is overturned, SobamaMG might have to move to Chicago and work for Rev. Wright as a janitor cleaning up soiled utilty rooms where Obama has evacuated.
Not that it will change him as a person HisMan, but occasionaly I hope he might understand important sociological concepts like RESPONSIBILITY for ones own actions.
“Truthseeker,” and why does “responsibility” (I’m sorry, “RESPONSIBILITY”) allow government to force you endure pregnancy and childbirth but not to donate a kidney to your kid which is much easier?
I don’t know SoMG. Maybe they just assume any parent would give a kidney to their child if the child needed it.
No, “Truthseeker”, that’s not the reason. For one thing everyone knows Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t do it unless you force them and maybe not even then.
They do force parental responsibility, I guess they allow parents wide girth in excersising care for their own children; but they do not allow them to strave them or intentionally harm them.
should have read:
but they do not allow them to starve them or intentionally harm them.
SoMG @ 10:51,
On the other hand, the idea that your mother grew you because of her belief in a supernatural entity, rather than because she wanted you, could also have a negative effect on your well-being.
You’ve got it wrong, So. Love breeds more love.
From http://www.LenMunsil.com
“It’s good to see Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin altering the Republican Convention to focus on the hurricane threat, calling on all Americans to pray and take action to help.
But after watching the latest Obama music video, with all its Messianic symbolism, I’m wondering why Barack Obama doesn’t just walk out onto the Gulf Coast water and part Hurricane Gustav.
I realize he failed to feed the 80,000 in Denver. But if he can get Barry Manilow and Whoopi Goldberg into the same music video, maybe he is the Messiah.”
HisMan,
Obama’s speeches or Whoopi leading voodoo chants wouldn’t helps against the force of a Category 4 hurricane
In light of hurrican Gustav, it is hard to understnad what exactly God is doing.
I ran across this in http://www.HearBobGass.com and all was made well:
“A century ago, following a coal mining accident, the Bishop of Durham told mourners, “It’s difficult to understand why God let such a disaster happen, but we know and trust Him and all will be right. At home I have an old silk bookmark given to me by my mother. When I examine the wrong side I see nothing but a tangle of threads…it looks like a big mistake. One would think someone had done it who didn’t know what they were doing. But when I turn it over and look at the right side I see beautifully embroidered, the words GOD IS LOVE. We are looking at this today from the wrong side. Someday we shall see it from another standpoint and we shall understand.” When we begin to see God in our situation, we can say “because of this I rejoice.” ”
HisMan @ 8:51,
Very nice.
Even if the storm misses to the West of NO, that town is in trouble. The only way to “fix” the problem is to take out some of the damns along the Mississippi and let the marshlands come back to the Gulf coast. The marshlands act as a barriers against the storm surge but it would take about fifty years for them to come back naturally, only then would NO be a safe place to live again.
Janet, I believe you can still watch EWTN Television via the internet at EWTN.com.
Thank you, Mike!
Truthseeker:
And Obama’s speeches and Whoopi Goldeberg’s chants could end up in the murder of millions, and millions of unborn babies. There is power in the spoken word be it for death or for life. Hitler is proof of that.
And we must oppose and renew our strength in the battle against abortion by studying and proclaiming God’s Word everywhere and whenver we can.
I for one am going to be blogging less and volunteering more in the McCain campaign here in Arizona. I suggest all us pro-lifers do so.
A parent does not need to sacrifice all of a right in order to sacrifice a portion. Lets say that a parent does not need to give an organ because an organ cannot be replaced…therefore giving it significance. A mother is still required to breast feed if formula is not an option. Obviously there are some rights to bodily autonomy that are sacrificed to our children.
Posted by: Oliver at August 31, 2008 5:54 PM
…………………….
There is a law requiring women to breast feed if formula isn’t available? OMG there isn’t one? You PL folks better get after that loophole to infanticide.
I’m sure I remember reading about a woman who didn’t lactate sufficiently to sustain her newborn and the newborn died. I’m sure that she willed herself not to lactate with the intent of starving her baby to death.
Agreed HisMan, we need to keep studying and proclaiming Gods’ word. So many “Da Vinci Code”
and other supposed scholars who lead people into false interpretations of the scripture. I believe
that scripture is now the focus of the devil and his minions and they will do their damnedest to
confound and confuse God’s people about the truth. I saw a gut on channel 11 today, representing himself as a biblical scholar and saying many scholars now believe that the resurection of our Lord was just a spritual resurrection. I shudder to think of the children and/or other Christians who could be corrupted by such blatently false teachings.
Did you get that e-mail from the McCain campaign about hosting a Republican National Convention party?
Sunday stupid #1
“I have an anouncement” …. “I peeded in the potty all by myself today!!!”
Sunday stupid #2
Pretty decent piece of sarcasm directed at right wing extemists.
Sunday stupid #3
Even with the poor video and sound quality, one would have to be desperately reaching to deem Biden impared by alcohol.
Even with the poor video and sound quality, one would have to be desperately reaching to deem Biden impared by alcohol.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:05 PM
Sally,
You must not have much experience with drinkers.
I would guess he was at some local bars with old-acquantainces from the steelworkers union. Why do you think that is such a stretch?
Even if the storm misses to the West of NO, that town is in trouble. The only way to “fix” the problem is to take out some of the damns along the Mississippi and let the marshlands come back to the Gulf coast. The marshlands act as a barriers against the storm surge but it would take about fifty years for them to come back naturally, only then would NO be a safe place to live again.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 8:55 PM
…………………………….
That’s a bit silly. The marshlands would filter the polution coming from upstream and therefor the gulf habitats but would most certainly not protect NO from the high winds and torrential rains brought by hurricanes.
Sally,
Did you really understand his babbling about the real reason he left Scranton was because Bob and Bobby Casey lived seven blocks away and he knew somebody famous was going to come out of Scranton and that he knew it wouldn’t be me?????
Sounded like the babblings of guy on a bar stool, which probably worked to his advantage with that crowd, but he was lubed.
Sally,
You must not have much experience with drinkers.
I would guess he was at some local bars with old-acquantainces from the steelworkers union. Why do you think that is such a stretch?
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 10:10 PM
…………………..
Why would you guess this? The man sounds to me to be a bit sleep deprived rather than inebriated. How do you see otherwise?
That’s a bit silly. The marshlands would filter the polution coming from upstream and therefor the gulf habitats but would most certainly not protect NO from the high winds and torrential rains brought by hurricanes.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:14 PM
Sally,
Much of the flooding and devastiion from Katrina were caused by storm surge that broke over the levee walls and washed them away it places. The rain causes flooding but the city was designed with pumps to handle most rainfall.
Sally,
Did you really understand his babbling about the real reason he left Scranton was because Bob and Bobby Casey lived seven blocks away and he knew somebody famous was going to come out of Scranton and that he knew it wouldn’t be me?????
Sounded like the babblings of guy on a bar stool, which probably worked to his advantage with that crowd, but he was lubed.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 10:17 PM
…………………
Obviously he was addressing a crowd that knew what he was talking about. I’m sure that it never occured to him that you would watch a sound bite on u tubie and feel all left out because you don’t know what he’s talking about.
How dare the man know his audience and actually speak to them without thinking about you!
Fie and for shame!
The man was less tanked than you are right now. IMO of course.
Even if the storm misses to the West of NO, that town is in trouble. The only way to “fix” the problem is to take out some of the damns along the Mississippi and let the marshlands come back to the Gulf coast. The marshlands act as a barriers against the storm surge but it would take about fifty years for them to come back naturally, only then would NO be a safe place to live again.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 8:55 PM
actually this statement IS correct Sally.
Marshlands act as storm buffers as well as environmental buffers.
Why would you guess this? The man sounds to me to be a bit sleep deprived rather than inebriated. How do you see otherwise?
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:20 PM
See Posted by: truthseeker at 10:17 PM
Sally,
Much of the flooding and devastiion from Katrina were caused by storm surge that broke over the levee walls and washed them away it places. The rain causes flooding but the city was designed with pumps to handle most rainfall.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 10:25 PM
………………….
And you think that some marshlands would have stopped this from happening? I agree in part. NO was built on quicksand to begin with IMO. Kind of our Venice. Shouldn’t really be there any more.
The man was less tanked than you are right now. IMO of course.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:26 PM
I am not tanked now but I have probably been tanked in local bars as much as Biden until I quit socializing in bars about seven years ago. So lets just say I have some expertise in identifying it. Everything about that “sound-byte” speaks of being “lubed”.
And you think that some marshlands would have stopped this from happening? I agree in part. NO was built on quicksand to begin with IMO. Kind of our Venice. Shouldn’t really be there any more.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:32 PM
Yes I do Sally. I think the same storm sixty years ago would not have broken the levees.
Sally,
The storm surge from hurricanes would be lessened if the marshes were intact. I watch the weather channel. Patricia and truthseeker are correct.
The city of NO is actually like a bowl – below sea level. The water comes in and fills it up.
And you think that some marshlands would have stopped this from happening? I agree in part. NO was built on quicksand to begin with IMO. Kind of our Venice. Shouldn’t really be there any more.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 10:32 PM
Yes I do Sally. I think the same storm sixty years ago would not have broken the levees.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 31, 2008 10:34 PM
…………………..
That levees needed to be erected in the first place is evidence to NO’s inate instability wouldn’t you say?
I don’t understand building a house on the San Andreas Fault and I don’t understand commerce being subsidised by the government to operate in unstable areas. If there weren’t good paying jobs in NO, no one would live there. IMO.
As for restoring the marshlands, we have the same problem. Government subsidized corporate farms that have destroyed the eco system along the Mississippi and thus the natural protection, little or large, from natural disaters.
As for Biden, no, not drunk. At my ancient age I still manage to go out and support my many musician friends. I know what drunk looks like. I also know what tired looks like.
What does it serve you to wish to believe that Biden was drunk during this video? I see no evidence whatsoever.
2.7 miles of marsh will reduce a hurricane storm surge by at least a foot
Sally is not only an expert ethicist but a civil engineer, and I hope she’s registered.
Tell me Sally, when was the last time someone paid you for your opinion?
Sally,
The storm surge from hurricanes would be lessened if the marshes were intact. I watch the weather channel. Patricia and truthseeker are correct.
The city of NO is actually like a bowl – below sea level. The water comes in and fills it up.
Posted by: Janet at August 31, 2008 10:53 PM
…………………….
And you know they are correct because you watch the weather channel? I really hope that you are being sarcastic.
What does it serve you to wish to believe that Biden was drunk during this video? I see no evidence whatsoever.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 11:00 PM
I am not saying it serves me anything. IMO he likely tipped a few. Why do you doubt it?
Sally,
Do you think Joe spent much time drinking with the steelworkers at local bars around Scranton? If so, then why wouldn’t he go do it again to reminisce old times and old stories about Bob and Bobby Casey etc.?
And you know they are correct because you watch the weather channel? I really hope that you are being sarcastic.
Posted by: Sally at August 31, 2008 11:04 PM
Sally, Lighten up. If we could find four-thousand scientists from around the world to confirm what we are saying, you’d still be a “doubting Thomas” (Biblical reference to one who doesn’t believe something unless he can see it for himself). It’s pretty much common knowledge since Katrina. Do your own research. You’ll see.
Sally is not only an expert ethicist but a civil engineer, and I hope she’s registered.
Tell me Sally, when was the last time someone paid you for your opinion?
Posted by: HisMan at August 31, 2008 11:02 PM
………………….
Actually my daughter is a Civil Engineer as well as an Architect. She just landed a career with the folks that built the Bird’s Nest and the Aquatic Center in Bejing.
My children are the testament to my opinions. I have never expected pay. Why do you think you deserve payment for your opinions?
This about McCain:
Repentant adulterer, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross, plane crash survivor, POW, Congressman, US Senator. This guy has lived life in all it’s trials and is ready to lead.
This about Barack Obama:
Admitted drug user, community organizer, proven sexist, heroically battled to not protect unborn infants, liar, associated with bombers and cursers of America, Ill State Senator, US Senator. Simply not ready to lead. Maybe in 30 or 40 years, but not now.
The only reason we are having this debate is because clowns like Sally support BO. And don’t forget this, they’d also support BOzo if he were their pro-abort candidate.
Uncontrollable laughing.
It’s sounds like the evacuation is going smoothly, this is good news. Hopefully those levies will hold up.
Uncontrollable laughing.
Posted by: HisMan at August 31, 2008 11:23 PM
………………
Why am I so sure that you are uncontrollably crying? And soon to be venting rage upon someone or something?
Could it be that you feel lacking in power? Do you feel that getting god just the ‘right’ way will make you taller, smarter………?
My bet is that you have short man syndrome.
You need to be careful of that. The next thing you know you will think that you are the god that you imagine to exist.
Well Sally, if you knew anything about engineering law you wouldn’t be representing anyone, especially your daughter, as an engineer or architect of any type to the public unless they were licensed and registered.
I mean, you seem to know everything about ethics even though you have zilch Biblical knowledge (your portrayal of Sarah as a whore was right on the money, ha, ha, ha) and you countered all of Truthy Toothies opinions on marshlands so I figured you were a civil engineer.
Oh, so I have a combat pilot son and that makes me an expert in aviation (well actually I was an aerospace engineer for 10 years)? Huh?
Oh, you mean you’re like the guy you’re supporting, a bag of wind riding on the coat tails of a deranged pastor, domestic terrorist, and convicted slum lord?
Why don’t you just try to figure things out by studying and praying and listening to God?
If anything, Obama is a pure example of an extreme conformist to Liberal thinking and teaching. He would have not been so successful at Harvard if he were not, he would not be supported by the likes of a New Ager and denier of God in Oprah, he would not have attended a church with a maniac pastor, he would not have served on a board of directors with a member of the student underground that bombed Federal buildings and police stations, he would not have been elected to the Ill State legislature or the US Senate unless he was willing to bend and twist the truth in exchange for a lie. He would not have married a woman who was ashamed of her country even though she was given an Ivy League education. And some of those dollars were mine and I’d like a refund thank you.
What a tragedy. With his looks (less the ears) and oratorial skill (less the uh, ums, and ohs) he could have been a really great man and not an image conscious puff ball, pro-abort. Maybe even a black Abraham Lincoln.
And for Harvard, originally a Christian college started by Christians, Obama is evidence of their totally apostate condition and departure from the truth from which their roots sprang and are totally detached from.
Yes Sally, you will be responsible for leading your children away from the truth as will Obama declaring that evil is good and good is evil. But, is that not above your and his pay grade?
Good one Sally.
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your originality of thought.
You can’t counter anything I say with the truth but only by attacking my stature which, by the way, you have absolutely no clue of.
Now I could say a few things about your physical appearance but, I don’t need to do that because I can read what you post.
And regards this comment, “My bet is that you have short man syndrome. You need to be careful of that. The next thing you know you will think that you are the god that you imagine to exist.” Actually, the guy you support, you know BO, is very tall and seems to be doing very well at that, i.e., he is the god that he imagines to exist. You sure you weren’t talking about him?
I’m still laughing.
Good night Sally, you’re not even a challenge.
Businessweek
August 29, 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2008/db20080829_272692.htm
PTA Chairperson, Sally Palin: We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
SG: Oooops! Here we go … Sally Palin says “W”a(R) in Iraq about OIL!
Snerd
Truthy Toothy and Janet.
Sally couldn’t punch her way out of a DNC sack lunch paper bag.
Don’t let her bully you.
Yes Sally, you will be responsible for leading your children away from the truth as will Obama declaring that evil is good and good is evil. But, is that not above your and his pay grade?
Posted by: HisMan at August 31, 2008 11:52 PM
…………….
I’ve read the book about a religiously demented man that marches children into death to ‘save’ them from the all powerfull Saaataaan. Actually several of them.
Get help.
SG: Oooops! Here we go … Sally Palin says “W”a(R) in Iraq about OIL!
Lets see, the WAR is on terror and the terrorists are from the middle east which is becoming rich at our expense through oil. What part of that makes Snerd Gronk Ooooops?
Snerd Oooops, Sarah’s plan to make us enery independent is real and I know liberals have a hard time with following anything that is real.
Businessweek
August 29, 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2008/db20080829_272692.htm
PTA Chairperson, Sally Palin: We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.
SG: Oooops! Here we go … Sally Palin says “W”a(R) in Iraq about OIL!
Snerd
Posted by: Snerd Gronk at September 1, 2008 12:10 AM
………………..
Interesting that you know that Sally is the nickname for Sarah. And an interesting note that Sarah/Sally is all about keeping her husband employed if not more highly employed through oil production.
I must note that I’m sure that it is a god driven inspiration to keep her husband gainfully employed.
See(R): “… Lets see, the WAR is on terror and the terrorists are from the middle east which is becoming rich at our expense through oil.”
SG: There were no ‘Al Qaeda and Saddam’ links. No Al Qaeda in Iraq. The 9/11 terrorists were largely Saudi and in Afghanistan.
But we still have OIL on the table ….
Snerd
HisMan, I’ll try not get bullied or abused too much. I should be safe unless Rae comes back :))
See-(R): “Snerd Oooops, Sarah’s plan to make us enery independent is real and I know liberals have a hard time with following anything that is real.”
SG: For the moment, let’s assume you are (R) right, as it were. What about Sally’s statement that the “W”a(R) in Iraq is about Oil?
Snerd
Sally: “… Sally is all about keeping her husband employed if not more highly employed through oil production. I must note that I’m sure that it is a god driven inspiration to keep her husband gainfully employed.”
SG: Yes PTA Sally is a really ‘Trooper, fired’ up about family, as it were … worth investigating …
But she admitted that the “W”a(R) in Iraq was/is about Oil … What do you think about that?
Snerd
“I must note that I’m sure that it is a god driven inspiration to keep her husband gainfully employed.
Posted by: Sally at September 1, 2008 12:27 AM”
Yep Sally, even though you guessed at it, you got something right about both Joe Biden (the drunk) and Sarah Palin (the admirable woman of God: God you are so, so good:
Proverbs 31
1 The sayings of King Lemuel
Snerd Gork, lets try this again slow for you.
Sarah is all about reducing our need for foreign oil and she believes our energy independence is key to our national security. Can you grasp that? btw, you need to get off the kool-aid for a while so you can see reality again.
See(R): “… Sarah is all about reducing our need for foreign oil and she believes our energy independence is key to our national security. Can you grasp that? btw, you need to get off the kool-aid for a while so you can see reality again.”
SG: I don’t know who you (R) arguing with. For the second time, let’s assume you (R) right about her aspirations for domestic Oil.
What about her saying the “W”a(R) in Iraq was/is for Oil?
Snerd
Snerd Gronked said:
But she admitted that the “W”a(R) in Iraq was/is about Oil … What do you think about that?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/aug2008/db20080829_272692.htm
Snerd, I read that interview of Sarah that you referenced and maybe you tell me which question in the interview Iraq came up under. I read the interview twice now and I don’t even see Iraq being talked about.
Sally: “There is a law requiring women to breast feed if formula isn’t available? OMG there isn’t one? You PL folks better get after that loophole to infanticide.
I’m sure I remember reading about a woman who didn’t lactate sufficiently to sustain her newborn and the newborn died. I’m sure that she willed herself not to lactate with the intent of starving her baby to death. ”
Actually there is in a certain sense. Its an interpretation of the “neglect” laws. If a woman is capable of breast feeding, but choosing not to, it is neglect. There is a woman on trial for this right now actually.
Besides, if we are appealing to what is currently the law, you could just claim abortion is illegal and be done with it. I am appealing to ethical principles anyways.
Nice try though Sally!
(By the way to further clarify for you….it isnt neglect if you are not capable to afford the money to feed your child either. However, it is neglect if you refuse to feed your child despite the ability to afford it.)
Snerd,
I dont agree with her on that one necessarily, but I like that as a Republican she isnt afraid to say it. Dont you find that refreshing? Someone who speaks their mind without worrying what her party thinks? This is what we need in Washington, not the same ol’ same ol’ with “the most Liberal senator” Obama.
Non-See(R): “… I read the interview twice now and I don’t even see Iraq being talked about.”
SG: The Question …
Some people might say: “Look, even though opening up ANWR has been a symbolic issue for Republicans, the oil there may only have a marginal effect on reducing overseas dependence. Why is ANWR so important and how do we know that there’s actually enough oil there to really make a difference?
Does that help?
Snerd
I dont agree with her on that one necessarily, but I like that as a Republican she isnt afraid to say it. Dont you find that refreshing? Someone who speaks their mind without worrying what her party thinks? This is what we need in Washington, not the same ol’ same ol’ with “the most Liberal senator” Obama.
Posted by: Oliver at September 1, 2008 12:58 AM
Oliver,
I think it is just a typical smear. Read the link in the article Snerd Gronked about. Iraq is not mentioned once by name. So I guess that would mean Snerd Gronked has lost all credibility unless he/she has a reasonable excuse for spreading that bit of misinformation, but I highly doubt he/she does have such an excuse. So Snerd Gronked will disappear and tomorrow Sleeze Wonked will be here to spread the misinformation.
Snerd, again I tell you that the Iraq war and/or even the nation of Iraq never even comes up in the interview. Can you grasp that FACT?
Oliver: “… I dont agree with her on that one necessarily, but I like that as a Republican she isnt afraid to say it. Dont you find that refreshing? “
SG: Actually I do … about as fresh as I find No-See-(R) stale
But let’s see how fresh it remains … Remember Mc’Cane’? “… In May, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also said that he plans to “eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.” He later backtracked from his comments, denying that he meant to imply that the Iraq war was fought over oil.”
I don’t want to make a ‘stale-gut-based-unfactually-substantiated-ASSertion, like you know who, but let’s just see how long she’s off script.
Snerd
t(R)uth -C: “Snerd, again I tell you that the Iraq war and/or even the nation of Iraq never even comes up in the interview. Can you grasp that FACT?”
SG: Did you manage to find the question I provided you … it is on page 2? Under that question PTA Sally sayz, “… We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources”
Maybe you could explain what “W”a(R) she is talking about … Maybe
As a further resource, you might find her saying so more directly on Glenn Beck when Palin told Glenn Beck,
“… I say this while our nation is at war, while we’re fighting, in some sense, over energy supplies.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
Snerd
Snerd,
Sarah is very clear and has no problem speaking her mind. Did you see how many times she talked about energy independence being an integral part of our national security? Does it dissapoint you that she didn’t say we were in Iraq for oil? Wait a minute, China just struck a big oil deal with Iraq, how does that fit in with your war for oil conspiracy theories? If Sarah had meant to say we were in Iraq for oil then she would come right out and say it. But we aren’t. We are there because Saddaam had been thumbing his nose at the US for years. Somebody was gonna be made an example and pay bthe price for 9/11 and when they were dancing in the streets of Baghdad after 9/11 they were targeted. Cleaning up the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is next. Will we be doing that for oil too? Look, if you are going to attack Sarah then don’t put your fabrications out there as if Sarah said them.
Snerd Gorked “she admitted that the “W”a(R) in Iraq was/is about Oil”
without ever mentioning the word Iraq… I guess Sarah is a ventriliquist to then huh Snork?
Good Snerd, now again, we all agree that in some ways we are at war because of “funding” of the mid-eastern countries that are our enemies when we buy their oil. Is that so hard for you to grasp. That is NOT the same thing as saying we are fighting the Iraq war for oil? I thought nliberals would good with concepts but not so good with actual details. You on the other hand cannot grasp the concept and you fill in your own little details like using the word Iraq when referring to quotes where Iraq is not even mentioned. For the love of God Snerd.
Snerd,
All you have established for me is that McCain and Palin, if anything, are more progressive than your typical Republican. You complain that McCain “reversed” his stance, yet for me, it shows that he does not want to cause a huge controversy. Whether or not he, or Palin, believes the war was started over energy concerns is really of no consequence. They werent the leaders at the time in case you missed it. What matters to me is that we get some fresh thinking Republicans into the whitehouse instead of typical Obama and Biden, two men who have consistently gone along party lines with very few “bucks” to the party leaders. Both Palin and McCain have come under fire from Republicans because of their non-conformist ways. Besides…do you think Obama says how he really feels? He has a name for his image…he calls it “the brand.” He makes sure that everything he says and does comes across as “fresh.” Its the exact same thing as any other politician, except his trick is fooling people into thinking its not.
Also, Biden did seem drunk…but I REALLY doubt he would be allowed to do something like that. The Obama campaign would consider it “brand erosion!”
Truth -F (R): “… If Sarah had meant to say we were in Iraq for oil then she would come right out and say it. “
SG: Ahhh … The ‘I’m The PTS-Sally Mind (R)eede(R)’, authoritative (R)-Goo-Ment … Can’t argue with that!
Truth -F (R): “… We are there because Saddaam had been thumbing his nose at the US for years. Somebody was gonna be made an example and pay bthe price for 9/11 and when they were dancing in the streets of Baghdad after 9/11 they were targeted. Cleaning up the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is next. “
SG: So the US is in Iraq because of a dancing infraction …. b(R)illiant!
Truth -F (R): “… Cleaning up the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is next. “
SG: Well the ‘t(R)oof’ … your EXXON-John, ‘I’ll follow Bin Laden to the gates of Hell … except if it’s in Pakistan’, might be a bit of a disappointment to you then. Anywayz, we can take comfort that has that 7 year old “W”anted, Dead or Alive poster, eh?!
I am curious, ‘How many ‘watt’ do you draw when you think up this stuff?’
Snerd
***If life does not begin at conception why does Planned Parenthood hand out so many condoms?***
Because the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s work- 90% of it- is in preventing unwanted pregnancies (mm hmm, yes, only 10% is abortions). What’s the darndest BEST way to do that? Giving out condoms. When life begins makes no difference to someone who is determined to get an abortion. Having used a condom could have put her out of this predicament. Not having sex is the best way to prevent the need for an abortion- we all agree on that. But if you’re going to have sex, use a condom and your chances of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy are lower, if not miniscule (if used correctly).
SG: So the US is in Iraq because of a dancing infraction …. b(R)illiant!
Gronked, it’s what they were dancing about that got them targeted, and it was really stupid on their part.
SG: Well the ‘t(R)oof’ … your EXXON-John, ‘I’ll follow Bin Laden to the gates of Hell … except if it’s in Pakistan’, might be a bit of a disappointment to you then. Anywayz, we can take comfort that has that 7 year old “W”anted, Dead or Alive poster, eh?!
Well Snord Gook, We can take comfort bthat he hasn’t been able to strike again since the Wanted Dead or Alive Poster was put out on him.
t(R)oof: “… Good Snerd, now again, we all agree that in some ways we are at war because of “funding” of the mid-eastern countries that are our enemies when we buy their oil. Is that so hard for you to grasp. “
SG: … errr … Could you try that again in English and in Conceptual …?
t(R)oof: “… I thought nliberals would good with concepts …”
SG: … ahhh … apparently not, whatever it is you (R) saying …
Am I to assume that you (R) NOT in favour of immigrants having to learn English?
Snerds
I don’t want to make a ‘stale-gut-based-unfactually-substantiated-ASSertion, like you know who, but let’s just see how long she’s off script.
Posted by: Snord Greek at Sept 1, 2008 1:22 AM
Gork Sneed, or we could just read the script the way it is stated and see if she ever actually says that….hmmmm… what a novel idea
Snerds, are you Rae?
Oliver: “… All you have established for me is that McCain and Palin, if anything, are more progressive than your typical Republican.”
SG: A plausible position, actually, though we are not in agreement.
Oliver: “… You complain that McCain “reversed” his stance, yet for me, it shows that he does not want to cause a huge controversy.”
SG: Now we’re straying from the plausible. Telling the truth is ‘hard work’, as it were. NOT telling the truth ’cause of consequences’ is what every lier uses as justification. AND it is a further indictment, if you still claim to be the Straight Talk Express …. Maybe he’ll argue that by ‘Straight’ he means NOT gay, when trying to reconcile the difficulty between claim and action … it would avoid the difficulty
Oliver: “… Whether or not he, or Palin, believes the war was started over energy concerns is really of no consequence. They werent the leaders at the time in case you missed it. “
SG: This is where you really get into trouble. What he would have done then matters greatly, as it reflects directly on what he would do as a leader in the future … It’s the JUDGMENT question the (D)z are starting to frame rather effectively
Snerd
t(R)oof: Snerds, are you Rae?
SG: No … ‘Rait’
t(R)oof: Gork Sneed, or we could just read the script the way it is stated
SG: Have you read yourz!? … It’s pretty (R)ae
Snerd
Snerd,
Snerd: “Now we’re straying from the plausible. Telling the truth is ‘hard work’, as it were. NOT telling the truth ’cause of consequences’ is what every lier uses as justification.”
First of all, McCain never directly said he did in fact go to war over oil. Second of all, the principle that it seems you are advancing is rather dubious. You seem to be asserting that any lie to prevent foul consequences is unjustified. I would assert that some lies are in fact justified concerning the consequences. In a sense, you dont crush a child when they present an awfuly done birthday card by telling them it is in fact awful. If McCain did in fact “lie” about his view of the war, his motivation is what we need to concern ourselves with. A likely motivation would be to keep the party unified or to avoid criticizing the current administration or to not insult the troops or degrade their sacrifices. Who knows why he may or may not have lied? My point is that he is clearly different from the current Republican agenda. This is a good thing. I want to consider myself Republican because of so many of my beliefs, but I have been a little jaded to say the least. Fortunately, I can get behind these two again.
Snerd: “This is where you really get into trouble. What he would have done then matters greatly, as it reflects directly on what he would do as a leader in the future … It’s the JUDGMENT question the (D)z are starting to frame rather effectively”
That is a good question, but it has nothing to do with what actually happened, or what McCain/Palin viewed as what happened. If you want to see how McCain would have responded, go back in time and replace him for the Republican nominee. Whether or not he thinks Bush was motivated over oil is of little consequence to what McCain would have done personally. This has nothing to do with his “judgement.” If you want to consider slamming someone on judgement, maybe you should take a look at Obama’s weak record. He refused and refuses to take a stance on just about anything.
What do you think about the concern over protecting “the brand?” Does it not sound like “old politics” to you?
r(R)oof: Well Snord Gook, We can take comfort bthat he hasn’t been able to strike again since the Wanted Dead or Alive Poster was put out on him.
SG: He hasn’t needed to since “W” gave him just what he wanted … an Infidel attack on a Arab country.
The Islamist idea … create an Evil Occupier in the M.E. so they can heroically fight them. It is a recruitment tool. If the situation in Afghanistan is any measure, a very successful one. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are stronger now than before the invasion.
The other Islamist objective is to destabilize existing regimes, particularly western oriented regimes. A western occupier increases the resentment on the Arab Street for the US but particularly for Arab regimes that are friendly to them. The Islamist hope is to step into the vacuum.
These and other reasons are why the “W”a(R) are regarded by those in the know as the biggest foreign affairs blunder in US history
Snerd
Oliver: “Who knows why he may or may not have lied?”
SG: Exactly! Which makes all of your justifying convolutions and Twists, Oliver … mute.
The more plausible framing for me is Biden’s “Senator McCain” vs “Candidate McCain”. If you look at all the flip flops they are from a maverick and straight talker to having sold his soul, to appeal to the base. Google McCain flip flops and judge for yourself ..
That’s not change you can trust!
My prediction is that the Palin choice will be his Katrina, what Katrina was to “W” … maybe not for the base, but for (I)z and that’s the election.
Snerd
Snerd,
I am guessing that English is your second language because you misread what I wrote. I said “who knows why he may or may not have lied.”
In other words, he may have no lied period. He may have lied…but then he may have lied with justification.
Why did Obama lie when he called us “folks” liars?
I cant trust Obama’s “change” because he doesnt know what hes talking about. He has very little substance to his career, with only party allegience to show for it.
Olie: I am guessing that English is your second language because you misread what I wrote. I said “who knows why he may or may not have lied.”
SG: Yes, possibly, it’s late. However, speaking of language proficiency, the construction is not ‘real’ strong
(a) who knows why he may … have lied
(b) who knows why he … may not have lied
In any case, if one were to use your interpretation, we don’t know what he did, and ascribing motives to it is a bit of a reach … No!? I mean we (R) gettin’ into “t(R)oof-bleater” territory
Snerd
Snerd,
Certainly. You cannot ascribe motives until you know what exactly happened anyways. He never claimed the war was specifically to “get oil.”
Regardless, the point is that even if he did lie, which is up for debate, his motivations may have justified it. You are trying to assert that a lie is never justified, but that principle will not get you very far.
By the way the construction is fine. Similar to math, the have is transfered across the verbs.
“may or may not” have lied
Its the same as saying “He has finished his dinner, brushed his teeth and now he will go to bed.”
The has is transfered to the “brushed” to maintain the present perfect tense.
I will say that most Americans (including myself) are pretty awful at grammar, but the meaning I put forth was pretty clear, if not grammatically correct.
We’re starting to round and round a bit … however I have appreciated the civility.
In parting, I’ll provide the quote again … it’s pretty damning
In May, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also said that he plans to ?eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.?
Conflict in the M.E. for Oil is the best interpretation …isn’t it? Isn’t anything else pretty convoluted and therefore pretty weak?
Snerd
Snerd,
Actually I can provide an alternative explanation that fits perfectly with his ideas and that statement.
“In May, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also said that he plans to eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
He is saying that he does not want the US to send troops into the Middle East for a war again. He is not saying he does not want the US to send troops into the Middle East for a war based on oil again. The point of bringing up the oil dependency is to give a reason for the possibility of another war in the future, that will itself be based on energy concerns. Be careful with your inferences Snerd…he never even implies that this particular war, or the previous Gulf War is or was based on oil.
He does however, leave it open to the possibility that this war is based on oil. He however never mentions it. His concern is over a future war…
SG: Yes PTA Sally is a really ‘Trooper, fired’ up about family, as it were … worth investigating …
Oh also…part of the reason the trooper was fired involved his tasering of his 10 year old step son.
Maybe Palin was upset that he was not fired, due to her special knowledge of what he had done. Maybe she fired her aide because he was assisting a corrupt police force. Maybe the only reason Wooten was fired was because Palin happened to not know anything about other troopers in personal detail. Or maybe she had nothing to do with it.
Gree(k) Sno(r)d,
You infer what (U) want in other (p)eoples statements and (p)resent your (I)nferences as though they were “F”actoids. That makes you a very unbelievable (P)oste(R).
(A)nd wh(Y) do (U) al(W)ays brea(K) up words with (P)aren(t)hese(S)? (D)oes it help (U) feel (d)ifferent some how (?)
Hes making fun of the whole (R) and (D) for republucan and democrat….
Guess its all part of an inferrential mind of a Gork. In none of the interviews Gerk posted does Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin actually mention the Iraq war or even the country of Iraq. What she says is that we need to start tapping our own supplies in order to protect ourselves from mid-eastern volatility.
Conflict in the M.E. for Oil is the best interpretation …isn’t it?
I don’t think so. It’s not like we’re “taking the oil” or getting the oil now whereas otherwise we wouldn’t be.
Bush Jr. felt he needed an issue as the post-9/11 and invade-Afghanistan popularity was wearing off. The Public was increasingly focusing on the economy and becoming dissatisfied with the Administration.
In the end it didn’t prevent his ratings from plummetting to record low levels, but it did delay it a fair amount of time.
Oliver, if one looks at what Mc’Cane’, the ‘Able’ communicator said, the ‘Genesis’ of his message is clear … or my friends, clearest.
Otherwise we (R) imputing ‘t(R)oof’ … blindfolded like … trying to pin the ‘tale’ on the elephant as it were. In your ‘narrative’ Occam is walking around with a 2 foot beard.
Therefore I still think this is the most Straight forward Thought Expression …
Action
plans to eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East
Consequences
that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.
So ….
If eliminate Oil dependency,
Then No M.E. Conflict
And no Troops sent to M.E.
If Oil dependency,
Then conflict
And Troops sent to M.E.
[To drive the point ‘home’ …]
And Troops sent to M.E. … AGAIN!
I understand you’ve provided alternatives but I think they (R) strained and starting to become somewhat like examples of ‘t(R)oof-iness’. I really have seen (or have missed) an argument that provides a better explanation … quite the ‘(R)everse’, if you will.
Snerd
Hey oliver, on those math questions:
“HisMan, yeah, it’d be the area of the triangle minus the area of the circle, then divided by three, regardless of what we assume the area of the triangle to be.”
“Oliver, a most excellent question, and to solve it I drew some more lines to subdivide the triangle and circle both.”
“I get a little less than a 1 in 7 chance, a little more than 13% probability.”
“Been a long time since I had to think of anything like that; to say I’m rusty is an understatement. But a lot of fun – thanks.”
How about this easy one? What is the area of a square if you know the diagonal of the square is 5? What is the area of an equalateral traingle if you know that one side is equal to 5?
HisMan: Answers:
1) 12
2) 10.8253
Hisman, #2 sounds right to me, but isn’t the area of the square going to be 12.5?
Snerd,
I teach logic patterns for several college entrance exams. If you fail to see the wild inference you made, I can try to help explain it. However, it seems that you are not trying to see your mistake. Its okay though. Inferences seem to be the hardest thing for people to understand from Med School students to Law School students right down to plain old highschoolers.
Let me know if you want my help though! Id be glad to explain.
Snerd,
Your posts are impossible to read. You don’t need to put your name and the commenter’s name in front of every response if you put the other person’s comment in italics. Maybe you don’t want everyone to understand?
What happened to punctuation? Proof-reading anyone?
Hi Snerd.
We want to keep you on board provided that your posts are intelligable.
Otherwise, they risk being deleted.
Thanks.
Olie Course: “… Let me know if you want my help though! Id be glad to explain.”
SG: I wanta get this response (R)ight … OK!, Bring it on!
IF we could keep it to the content in question, I think the discussion might work better for us both, though.
Snerd
Cad: “We want to keep you on board provided that your posts are intelligable [sic].”
SG: Indeed ….
Any particular post you’d like clarified?
Snerd
Snerd,
Its hard to demonstrate what an inference is without going to several examples. Essentially it all boils down to what we perceive to be the case. Remember that when you infer something you are essentially saying “this must be true.” The other explanations may seem to you unlikely, but you do have all the knowledge necessary to make that decision.
If I say “Off shore drilling will destroy America” I am not necessarily saying that I dont support it. Maybe I support the destruction of America? So when McCain says that he wants to eliminate our dependency on oil to prevent a second war in the ME, we can only directly infer that he is concerned that there may be a second war in the ME, if we are dependent on oil.
You can also think of it as conditional statement.
McCain is trying to assert that oil dependency is a sufficient condition of another war in the ME. That would read like so…
If oil dependency, then ME war. or
OD -> ME war
We can also take the contrapositive of this statement to get…
If no ME war, then no oil dependency. or
~(ME war) -> ~(OD)
However, you are trying to infer that McCain is asserting the oil dependency as a NECESSARY condition. In other words…that if there is a war, it is because of oil dependency, which would read something like this…
Me War -> OD
with the contrapositive of
~(OD) -> ~(ME War)
It is a common misconception that the word “prevent” means to stop completely when it comes to a logic interpretation of an argument. It really means, in better terms, to help make not happen. In other words, I eat healthy to prevent being unhealthy. However, I could become unhealthy from something unrelated to my eating habits…such as contracting a cold or something.
In other words, he is not saying that stoping OD will STOP a war, he is saying that stoping OD will HELP MAKE a war NOT HAPPEN, which of course opens the possibility up that there are other sufficient factors that could lead to a war in the ME.
All this of course is also dependent on the acceptance that “another war” is the same as “the current war.” There could be factors entirely different which makes them unrelated. Think WWI versus WWII. They both happened on the same “stage” so to speak, and they both had very similar characteristics, but you will however see that the US involvement in those wars was markedly different.
I think Biden got drunk cause he was so scared at the thought of having to face Sarah.
Snerd,
No particular posting, some tend to be more erratic thatn others.
Just from this point on, ‘kay?