Pro-aborts cry, vowing to oppose HR 3962 and overturn Hyde Amendment
Despite Politico’s swooning piece calling Nancy Pelosi the “master” of House Democrats by passing nationalized healthcare, and despite the elation…
… and despite the “mixed reaction” described by the pro-abortion blog RH Reality Check, there is trouble in Dodge City.
For starters, Planned Parenthood now opposes the House healthcare bill…
PP condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening….
[T]he PP Federation of America has no choice but to oppose HR 3962….
PP and NARAL are both vowing to try to strip the Stupak/Pitts amendment in the Senate and then in conference.
Meanwhile med student Megan Evans, president of George Washington University’s Medical Students for Choice and abortionist aspirant, sobbed. Watching her golden parachute splat to the ground unopened with passage of Stupak/Pitts, Megan wrote on RH Reality Check:
After hearing the results of the Stupak-Amendment this evening, I burst into tears. Normally, when these ridiculous bills are passed and, once again, a road block is placed in front of women’s health, I grit my teeth, curse under my breath, and prepare to face another challenge in the world of reproductive health. Tonight, though, my emotions took over and I wept. If you know me, you know I don’t cry easily. But my tears weren’t for me. I was crying for the thousands upon thousands of women this bill affects….
Oh, brother. Megan wins the pro-abort drama queen award for the night, crying crocodile tears in the truest sense of the term.
Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Free Choice, plans to channel her negative energy to overturn the Hyde Amendment:
Sorting through feelings as well as strategies in the face of the enormous defeat that the passage of a health care reform bill that so severely and punishingly restricts access to abortion will take time and hard political decisions….
But the immediate take away is the cold hard fact that our biggest and most costly defeat since 1973 was the enactment of the Hyde Amendment and our lack of a total, uncompromising commitment to overturning it. If nothing else happens as a result of this defeat, complete and total dedication to overturning Hyde must be the centerpiece, indeed the single objective of our movement. It is not clear if the effect of the Stupak Amendment will be that the door will close on ever restoring federal funds for abortion, but every effort to make sure that does not happen must be made….
President Obama has always supported overturning Hyde and we now need to insist that having achieved his political objective with strong support from the women’s movement, he must take up the true moral cause….
Joe Biden and any pro-choice Democrat who has not been for over turning Hyde needs to change their mind – and we need to insist they do so….
We must thank God today for stopping the expansion of abortion and then return to work tomorrow, stopping nationalized healthcare that despite any anti-abortion provisions still rations care of the disabled and elderly.
[Photo of Evans via the Washington Post]
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.
As I said, even with abortion off the table the far right will oppose health care reform since they want Obama and America to fail.
The “rationed care” is yet another Betsey
Mccauley/Health insurance lobby lie that was rejected by thinking people months ago.
Bystander,
Please. Enough already with the “we want Obama and America to fail”.
We want Obama to succeed as a great president with great policies that give life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all individuals, including the unborn. This has nothing to do with Obama “the person”, it’s his life-ending/life-threatening policies towards the unborn, elderly, and those lives’ he deems “unwanted” that we want to fail. No one wants America to fail. That is a ridiculous comment that only the one’s on the far, far left believe. The rest of us laugh at that ridiculous comment.
Rationed care is yet another Betsey? Really? Kindof like the “Betsey” about your side stating over and over again, pounding their fists, that abortion wasn’t in the healthcare bill either? Why should we believe you when your side lies to get what they want?
Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 9:27 AM
“As I said, even with abortion off the table the far right will oppose health care reform since they want Obama and America to fail.”
—————————————————–
Bs’er’
A resounding “DUH” or “DOH’.
If you are counting on B.O. and his progressive/liberal/humanist cohorts to come meandering to your rescue on their black asses/donkeys you need rewind your mind to the days of Hurricane Katrina and Mayor Nagin and the former governor of Louisianna and all the intermediary bureaucrats between them and the ‘government dependent’ people stranded on the roof tops around the ‘chocolate city’ of New Orleans.
It was your liberal democ-RATs who betrayed you, not pro-lifers or conservatives.
I challenge you to find a single example of a ‘conservative’ who has stated he/she/it wants America to fail.
We conservatives want B.O.’s and progressive/liberal/democ-RAT’s policies to fail because they are bad for America.
B.O.’s policies are UN-American!
I suggest you take a lesson from those people who were stranded on the roof tops of New Orleans and and embrace the present reality and figure out a way to help/save yourself and those whom you love.
You bear the primary responsibility for your health and safety, not us.
The ‘government’ does not owe you anything and anything the ‘government’ provides you it first took from someone else in the form of tax or fee.
If a one legged man could run most of the way across Canada, then you can find a way to provide for your own needs.
Maybe you could try your hand at writing poly-sci-fi short stories. You have provided us with example after example of political fantasy and fiction.
yor bro ken
2/3rds majority, Minnow. This may be a while…
BTW the “death panels” have become such a joke, that Andy Borowitz has a hilarious satire on the Huffington Post about a “slow moving convoy of grannies, in 1980s era Cadillacs, with the blinker on, and their cats and knitting, fleeing to Canada ahead of the death panels.”
The health insurance lobby makes millions, and if Jill wants to shill for them, she should get paid.
Marie I am glad to hear someone disagree with Rush about wanting Obama and America to fail.
I wish one elected official in the GOP had the courage to stand up to his ridiculous hate speech, instead of worshipping him on their knees.
And Ken, have you noticed I never read, much less respond to your rants? Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.
Bystander 9:27am
The failure of Obama’s agenda means America succeeds. Unfortunately Obama is succeeding with his agenda passed and America is failing.
Obama is successful in portraying himself to the world as weak and indecisive, and America is endangered by our enemies who give Obama “the finger”.
Obama succeeds in passing a “stimulus” bill and America fails economically as unemployment rises.
Obama succeeds with Cap and Trade, aka Crap and Tax, and that can only mean economic hardship and failure for Americans.
Obama succeeds in evading any decision on Afghanistan and our troops suffer and America faces defeat as our enemies realize, I’m sure much to their delight, what a weak and indecisive incompetent runs this country.
You’re right Bystander, I want nothing more than for Obama to fail, just as I’m sure any number of rational Germans hoped Hitler would fail. Obama’s “successes” are destroying this country.
No, Bystander, rational people KNOW that care will be rationed. Medicare ALREADY rations more care than any other insurance provider. Do we really think that putting more people into a system while cutting funding is going to result in better care?
This healthcare plan will hurt the elderly and those with chronic health issues. Thinking people know this. Only helpless lemmings like you think that the magical insurance fairy is goign to come and give us all wonderful coverage without sacrifice.
Right, Bystander, “death panels” are a joke. It’s not like other countries have set up panels that decide when someone lives or dies. No sir. NICE doesn’t exist. The Gronigen Protocal doesn’t exist. Hell, the hospital boards in Texas that decide that someone’s care is “futile” don’t exist.
Those are all just creations of right wing fear mongers. People aren’t really dying. Nope. Nothing to see here, put your head back in the sand and continue on with the snarky jokes!
Bystander,
I don’t agree with many things Rush says. It usually follows that angry, bitter people tend to spew alot of angry, bitter comments because their anger and bitterness cloud good judgment and reason.
Gee, it sure sounds to me like an internal civil war is brewing here. Obama’s PA supporters will not be too overjoyed, just listen to Blubbering Betty in Jill’s post, if he signs this bill with Stupak’s Amendment. In fact, can he even give it his support? This should get interesting.
Now let’s see, there’s plenty of angry contituents, after all the majority of Americans opposed this bill, PL Democrats, PA Democrats, and just Democrats, my own congressman included, who were more Nancy Pelosi lapdogs than servants of their constituents.
The Republicans can just sit back and watch all this, which they are wise to do.
Bystander,
Did you hear that women in Britain with breast cancer were denied a life saving treatment for breast cancer because the gov’t deemed it too expensive? Desperate British women had to go to court. Its available here in the US and yes it is expensive, but it is available.
Death panels? Nahhh.
Also, didn’t “The Leader”, when asked about pacemakers for the very elderly, respond that they would just have to take pain pills?
Yes! Health rocks! Woo hoo!
I’ve decided to take myself firmly by the hand and not kvetch about the bigots who are whining because a law that has always been in place will remain in place. They can whine all that they want, they won’t ruin the fact that this is a wonderful, amazing day.
And if those bigots do sink this bill, it will be left to them to explain why thousands of impoverished pregnant women cannot have access to prenatal care, and it will be left to them to explain why, despite not being able to afford care, they can definitely have an abortion. Then these same bigots can explain to the nation why they insist on being called “pro-choice” as they attempt to sink a bill that broadens choice.
I’m so pleased that this passed, I did a (really bad) Happy Dance.
:)!
Vannah, when I was a low income pregnant woman, I had access to prenatal care through my state. Just about every poor pregnant woman already does. This bill is unnecessary, and it gives the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power over a huge portion of not just an American industry, but also the men, women, and childrens’ lives associated with that industry. This is not something to be happy about.
Ken, sadly Bystander is correct: There are many here, Jill included, who want to see Obama fail. It’s clear.
Posted by: Minnow at November 8, 2009 11:12 AM
You had to re-post that? Ok, please listen:
How are we supposed to explain to you that we do not want to see Obama the President fail, but we do want his pro-death policies to fail, when you cannot even understand the word “BANNED”. It’s your problem Minnow. Please deal with it.
Yeah, I’m sure all the Canadians crossing the border to get life-saving treatments they were denied or delayed from getting until the point it would be fatal or permanently damaging for them under the Canadian system are just bursting with pride there, Minnow. I can’t wait until you get eaten by a bigger fish.
No Marie, I’m pretty sure there are people here who want Obama the President to fail.
Posted by: Minnow at November 8, 2009 11:26 AM
———–
I want Obama’s policies to fail so that our country can succeed. And for those who don’t know, that’s the same exact thing that Rush Limbaugh wants to.
Because of his pro-death policies, Minnow. It’s personal, not presidential.
Not even the far-far-far-far-far left lobby could stand to stand with the pro-aborts…. PP has and the people who work there and the people who support them (the Devil included) are losing the battle for the soul of America. Yoo Hoo!!
Heck I admit it, I want Obama to fail and I explained why that is in my 10:44am post. His “successes” mean ruin for this country.
Don’t we all agree that Germany would have been far better off if Hitler had failed miserably with his agenda? A leader’s failure is not necessarily a country’s failure.
Well how interesting. The Detroit Free Press reported in August of this year that border hospitals, including Detroit’s, were making lucrative arrangements with Canada’s health care system to provide care that is otherwise unavailable to Canadian citizens under their otherwise marvelous health care system.
Why can’t Canada provide these services for its own citizens and why hasn’t it by now?? Certainly none of us would want to travel to another country for health care unless absolutely necessary so I wonder how Canadians feel about this?
Minnow,
I’m sure we don’t agree for the same reasons, though. I would support Obama personally if his personal view on being pro-death changed. If his personal view changed, so would his policies.
So yes, I believe it’s personal. Beliefs, as I understand them, are.
I don’t want him to fail. I want discrimintory policies to.
Hi Marie,
Those policies you refer to are Obama’s. If he succeeds, they succeed. If he fails, they fail.
Sorry but you can’t seperate the man from his policies, anymore than Germany’s fate could be seperated from Hitler’s agenda.
I would wholeheartedly support Obama if I was convinced his policies would spell success for this country. As it is I see they only mean failure.
You know what? I want heath insurance reform, I’d even like a Canadian or European styled system. But, I’m sure not getting worked up about it. It’s on it’s way, it’s inevitable in the long run. I can wait if we have to. It’s just so very nice to have the country talking about the important issues for a change and moving, at least slightly, in the right direction.
Hi Minnow,
I can understand years ago but shouldn’t these services have been provided for Canadian citizens by now?
Obviously if Canadians must come across the border to hospitals that may be far away from home, then they are not getting the services they need in Canada and just how happy can Canadians be about that?
Hal,
I wholeheartedly support health insurance reform. More competition across state lines, choice in benefits, tax breaks for private medical accounts, etc. Originally, health insurance was for catastrophic coverage. People paid for doctor and hospital visits and prices and services were competitive and kept in check. They had to be. The more “third party” pays, be it insurance or the gov’t, the more the prices increase and sensible management and competition fly out the window.
Personally, I would just like catastrophic coverage and hospitalization. I prefer to pay for private doctor visits. You may prefer full coverage, someone else may prefer a private account. I support tax breaks to enable people to purchase insurance or set up accounts.
The “rationed care” is yet another Betsey Mccauley/Health insurance lobby lie that was rejected by thinking people months ago.
Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 9:27 AM
When Republicans introduced an amendment that would have prohibited comparative effectiveness data from being used as a basis to deny care, it was voted down by Democrats.
The health insurance lobby makes millions
LOL. Have you counted how many millionaires there are in Congress? Go ahead. You’ll run out of fingers and toes before you’ve counted even 1/10th of them.
Minnow 12:02PM
But your father got treatment, right? Its not unusual that people may have to travel miles for specialized treatment, via helicopter or ambulance, but the treatment is available in the country. We often have to send people to the university hospital which is a good 2 hours from us. We also get patients from a portion of a neighboring state, sometimes by helicopter transport.
BTW, I hope your father did well and continues to.
I just question why this care is not available to Canadian citizens under their health care system but is available to Americans under ours.
Whatever our failings, people are anxious to take advantage of our technology and services.
I don’t believe for a minute that this is the end of the abortion issue. The party of death (Democrats of course) will find a way to get it back in the bill.
Hi Fed Up,
You must learn a simple fact of life. Wealth is only evil when it isn’t Democrats enjoying it.
The Hollywood Hobnobs, who are largely Democrats, are one glaring example. Has anyone complained about the millions Barbara Streisand has raked in?
How about the other Hollywood liberals like Danny Glover and Sean Penn. Do they make too much money? Of course its fine when THEY wallow in their wealth.
When someone questioned Rush’s income he responded by asking if they asked Barbara Walters what her income was.
No one has an issue with Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, the Kennedys, John Kerry, or the rest of the Democrats enjoying their millions.
Oh, and that disgusting hypocrite Michael Moore, you know the guy who hates capitalism, but not the 7+ figure bank account he enjoys because of it, is another one. When challenged by Sean Hannity to give put his money where his mouth is and give away his millions, Moore could only squirm in his chair.
Wealth is only evil when it isn’t Democrats enjoying it.
Hi Mary :) You are spot on, as always.
Hey Minnow, this is all I need to know about the current American system vs. Canadian system:
That medical technology was ours. Canada did not have it in their country to take advantage of. Have you ever heard of quality over quantity?
What is the wait time in Canada for an open MRI? I’m just curious because I can’t go into the closed ones. I was able to get one in two weeks(the normal one had no wait).
Again, I point to the fact that medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than any other insurance group. I don’t know why liberals are pretending access will improve with a government option.
It will get worse.
Hmm. Or we could make insurance more affordable without throwing people onto a public system, and let them buy their own insurance. What a crazy idea.
Yes, so setting cost-effectiveness over availability as a priority limits access for Canadian patients. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I don’t know why liberals are pretending access will improve with a government option
It’s just liberal spin, Lauren. They’re banking on the uninformed to assume that having a government insurance card means access to more or better care.
Or we could make insurance more affordable without throwing people onto a public system, and let them buy their own insurance.
Wouldn’t accomplish increased government control over the delivery of health care. That’s the goal of the legislation, not increasing access or covering the uninsured or uninsurable.
If the goal was to make insurance more affordable, they wouldn’t be legislating mandates that increase premiums. And the proof is in the pudding. If premiums would decrease under this legislation, Congress would put THEIR plans into the same exchange as plans of the common folk. But they know premiums are expected to rise, so they are keeping their plans in their own exchange.
No, care is siginificantly reduced. The only reason it runs as well as it does (with lotteries to see if you can see a primary care doctor) is because it relies on our free market system to take in its patients.
If our free market collapses, so does Canada’s freeriding.
I was talking to a Canadian at a hockey game at RIT Friday night. He had to have surgery to correct a sciatic nerve and felt fortunate that he could get the surgery right away because he knew the surgeon.
He said if he was anyone else he would have had to wait 6-8 months.
He believes their system is the best in the world.
Wrong again, Virgina. US insurance companies have a lower profit margin than Tupperware. They deny far fewer claims than government run healthplans and provide their members with superior services.
Premiums rise because private insurance companies are forced to subsidize federal programs that shortchange doctors and hospitals.
If you want to evaluate Canadian health care, I would recommend you talk with actual Canadians, rather than what Fox News says. Actual Canadian citizens report they are generally very satisfied with their health care.
Costeffectiveness without significantly compromising care X.
Posted by: Minnow at November 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Who gets to decide what “significantly” means? Personally, I’m not willing to let someone else be the judge of that when it comes to my health.
Do us all a favor and go back to Canada, please.
Let’s do some math, Vannah.
Medicare originally cost about $3 billion, when it began in 1965, and was projected to cost about $12 billion by 1990, adjusted for inflation. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly ten times that figure, $107 billion. It was up to $440 billion by 2007.
Remind me again why I should trust the $1 trillion figure the democrats are throwing out there now.
Bystander 1:56PM
Fox news interviewed Canadian citizens who had travelled to the U.S. when they had to wait too long in Canada to even see a doctor, much less get their much needed care. One was a woman going blind from a tumor who had to wait months to see a specialist. She and her husband came to the U.S. and received immediate treatment.
Also, the father of my aunt’s physical therapist came to the U.S. from Canada, thanks to his daughter’s medical connections, for cancer treatment that he otherwise had to wait 6-8 months for in Canada.
Hi Carder 2:13PM
Also the question of where this 1 trillion is coming from. The Chinese? They already own us.
Mary, why not go “cold turkey” on Fox for 30 days and seek other sources of information. You might be amazed at what you might learn, if you turn off the 24/7 right wing propaganda machine.
Bystander 3:16PM
Maybe you should try Fox News. You might learn something.
“Pro-aborts cry…”
Good.
BS’er,
The 24/7 right wing propaganda machine?
Are you seriously that blinded by liberal MSM?
Explain why PP and other pro-choice groups are suddenly crying out against this bill if it never would have allowed gov’t spending on abortion, anyway, as they tried to claim?
I watch a well-balanced mix of news programs. No, the left is equally CAPABLE of accurate reporting. But MSM has such a strong agenda that they don’t allow themselves to be fully accurate. It’s unfortunate.
Oh, and as for Canadians who are so thrilled with their health care, my husband works with a former Canadian, we follow a Canadian blogger (he’s actually quite liberal), and we have a great deal of family living in Quebec and Ontario. Not one of them is actually happy with their national healthcare. Most of them are extremely dissatisfied, actually.
Mary, why not go “cold turkey” on Fox for 30 days and seek other sources of information. You might be amazed at what you might learn, if you turn off the 24/7 right wing propaganda machine.
Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 3:16 PM
That “right wing propaganda machine” you call Fox news was the ONLY channel to have Botox Pelosi’s speech last night.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/08/fox-only-cable-newser-air-pelosis-house-speech-live
The Fox coverage was in the context of the disrespectful name-calling and ridicule Fox and Joanne think appropriate in addressing the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Was it followed by the Glenn Beck segment, in which he suggests Pelosi be murdered, and acts it out? Fair and balanced, as always.
Yep, those silly Canadians, they’re just not smart enough to know what’s good for them…Kind of like Americans…at least to liberals. You pompous…
“The Fox coverage was in the context of the disrespectful name-calling and ridicule Fox and Joanne think appropriate in addressing the Speaker of the House of Representatives.”
No wonder Queen Pelosi seems to think she’s single-handedly running this country…She has sycophants like you following her around 24/7, no doubt.
X,I am sorry you can only dispense Fox sound bites
I am not a big Pelosi fan, but I don’t believe in suggesting the murder of government officials as you and Fox News apparently believe.
BTW, I expect Fox News to openly advocate the assassination of our President by the end of this year.
Uh Bystander,
Please google “the assassination of George W. Bush.
Bystander’s arguments get old fast.
Lots and lots of ad hominem, no actual sound argumentation. Frequent references to Media Matters, though.
Blech.
Yay to the Stupak Amendment, yay to the Hyde Amendment, and a great big GLORY TO GOD for the conversion of souls in our nation!
Bystander you should pick a new id considering you are the one picking the fights. At least you acknowledge the existence of objective truth. Otherwise I see no reason why you are so passionate.
Now who has a an objective right to exist? The child or the woman/ man who wishes to abort it? All were at one point a child. At what stage does a human receive that right if it does not always possess it? Who is to say who has the greater right if all parties involved are “innocent”? If it is received at some point (rather than from the beginning of life) then from where does it come from since that particular human was not always in existence? As such it can not confer a right upon itself that it never previously possessed. Imagining a person can lift themselves up by their own boot straps is absurd. Everything has cause. It is necessary that a person receive the right to exist at some point and can not confer it upon themselves since they did not create themselves. It is also patently obvious that humans can not confer it since they are not able to bestow it upon themselves (individually or as a society). It can only be received from something higher that always existed.
Having said that from where does the government receive its authority? Since the government was not always in existence it did not always possess authority. You probably will say from the people. In that case how can people confer upon the government an authority they have not always possessed? For instance the “people” are composed of individuals. No individual in and of himself possesses the right to enact laws upon any other. That applies to all individuals. If that is so how can the people properly be said to confer authority upon a government since whole is merely the sum of its parts and no part possesses that authority? If the government does not receive its authority from the people then what is the source and limits of its authority?
It is evident a significant number of people disagree with the government upon healthcare. Assuming it is 50/ 50 or even 75/ 25 (which from my experience is highly improbable) where does the minority receive the authority to impose laws upon the majority (or vice versa) that they object to? As to the objective moral virtues of the healthcare bill they are simply not present. If they were you should state what they objectively are and why they should be considered a virtue.
From what I have read its claims of effectiveness and aims are highly over rated at best. The worst is obvious.
No I don’t like Limbaugh- he is an economic conservative but morally flexible (actually feels the GOP should be more progressive). Neither do I watch FOX. Actually our last TV (the old crt type)recently died. Wasn’t much good any ways-TV is mostly noise. Reading is a much better source and engages the mind. Watching too much TV is mind numbing and often impairs critical thinking skills. I suggest a break from it- it is refreshing and may even clear up the mind. Usually it take about 2 weeks for any noticelable effect. Same thing with radio and partisan newspapers(especially talk radio). It is in interesting experience since usually you learn to develop your own view point. Most likely it will still be liberal in your case but at least its not the same old verbatim arguments used on liberal talk shows (or “conservative” ones for that matter). My sincere regards to all.
Hi Marie,
Those policies you refer to are Obama’s. If he succeeds, they succeed. If he fails, they fail.
Sorry but you can’t seperate the man from his policies, anymore than Germany’s fate could be seperated from Hitler’s agenda.
I would wholeheartedly support Obama if I was convinced his policies would spell success for this country. As it is I see they only mean failure.
Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2009 11:54 AM
I know. That’s why I said this…
Minnow,
I’m sure we don’t agree for the same reasons, though. I would support Obama personally if his personal view on being pro-death changed. If his personal view changed, so would his policies.
So yes, I believe it’s personal. Beliefs, as I understand them, are.
I don’t want him to fail. I want discrimintory policies to.
Posted by: Marie at November 8, 2009 11:43 AM
Mary, I don’t want any president to fail. I would like to see Obama have a change of heart and become the best president we have ever had. I’d like to see the next president become even more successful and the next, and the next, and next.
I respect the office of presidency and only pray that each president is good for the country. Hitler’s history is written and can’t be changed. Obama’s is not over yet and can change.
So yes, I believe you can’t seperate the man from the policies, but the policies can change because the man has a change of heart. People change, Mary. That’s why we pray for our presidents.
So no. I do not hope that Obama fails. His current policies? yes. The man, no.
Hi Marie,
Sorry, but the man cannot be seperated from his policies. If he has a change of heart and changes his policies then I will wish him every success. If his policies continue to destroy this country then I will hope he fails as a president to implement those policies.
My analogy to Hitler is to point out that policies reflect a leader and his beliefs. Any sensible German would have wanted Hitler to fail and unfortunately he did not. His “success” destroyed Germany and I remain convinced that Obama’s “success” will destroy this country.
You know I am thinking of changing my handle so as not be mixed up with Marie
Wow. The irony here is that the proaborts, killer aspirants like Megan Evans, are what’s going to kill the health bill dead in the Senate. Death begets death…
Mary,
I think that’s pretty much what I said. I give up trying to explain it though.
Bystander: “BTW the ‘death panels’ have become such a joke…”
…that Democrats scrambled to take them out of the bill/hide them as soon as light was shed upon them. Yeah.
“Mary, why not go ‘cold turkey’ on Fox for 30 days and seek other sources of information.”
Which ones would you recommend? (This oughta be good…)
“Was it followed by the Glenn Beck segment, in which he suggests Pelosi be murdered, and acts it out?”
Please cite the one you mean, so that we can demonstrate what a fool you are. I’ve blogged about the segment to which I believe you refer and no one was suggesting that Pelosi be murdered.
Posted by: Bystander at November 8, 2009 10:37 AM
“And Ken, have you noticed I never read, much less respond to your rants? Here’s a quarter, call someone who cares.”
—————————————————
BS’er,
You are so predictable.
You ‘claim’ you do not read or watch people with whom you disagree, then you purport to be some kind of knowledgeable authority, not only on what they have written or said, but on what is hidden in their heart.
With that kind of pscycic prowess you should consider pimping yourself out to gullible liberals as a ‘curandera’.
Now, you’re starting to behave just like ms. Pelosi when she was trying what to rememeber what she did NOT say and when she did NOT say it.
You that authoress made a lot of money writing those Harry Potter books.
You do have a both proclivity and an talent for fantasy.
yor bro ken