Friday, August 24, 2012

Post #434: Random Observations


"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former."

-Albert Einstein

The following
collection of shameless, LEFT WING propaganda were thoughts I had jotted down in my notebook (Yes, some of us still rely on ink and paper) or posted on various SUBVERSIVE websites out in cyberspace. Any similarities to any persons living or dead is purely intentional. Sue me.

1. Shakin' Akin

Despite the calls of his fellow Republican for him to cease his bid for Clair McCaskill's senate seat following his stupid "legitimate rape" remarks last Saturday morning, Missouri congressman Todd Akin insists on staying in the race. He doesn't give a damn about the party he professes devotion to. It's all about his ambition. If he brings them down in November, so be it. Hang in there, Todd!

2. Hindsight
is a Funny Thing

From "The Rant", April 2011:

"The religious bigots and crazy people who long ago hijacked the "party of Abraham Lincoln" will never - EVER - nominate a Mormon. As the old Ringo Starr song says: "Pigs will fly and the earth will fry" before that ever happens. David Duke will be named chairman of the NAACP before THAT ever happens"

Okay, so I got that one wrong - but look at the choices they had!

3. Sherrod Brown

His rum
pled suits are off-the-rack, he sometimes needs a shave, his haircut is pretty bad, and he always looks like he has a hangover. Is it any wonder why I love Sherrod Brown so much? I never thought anyone could replace Ted Kennedy, and no one has. But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio has come pretty darned close. He is one of the few Democrats in Washington who remember that theirs is the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The moneyed interests (the oil lobby in particular) are spending untold millions to see that he is not reelected in November. He needs our help. Please, if you can afford it (Times are tough, I know) go to his website and make a little donation, okay? Here's a link:

http://www.sherrodbrown.com/

I can't afford to lose Sherrod Brown. Neither can you.

4. The Party of Rape


Check out the Republican National Convention when it commences on Monday. It's always a fun thing to watch. Unintentional comedy always is. This year it's going to be a hoot-and-a-half! Did you check out their party platform? They would like to make all abortions illegal - EVEN IN CASES THAT INVOLVE RAPE OR INCEST! Isn't that a scream? Any man with a wife or a sister or a daughter or a niece - indeed any man even distantly related to a female - who would cast their vote for that disgusting party ought not to be involved - in any matter - in the electoral process. Any woman who would cast their lot with the GOP should not have access to sharp objects. I'm just sayin'.

5. Happiness is a Warm Gun (BANG! BANG! SHOOT! SHOOT!)

There was
another mass shooting this morning. This one happened in New York City, right outside the Empire State Building in fact! Nine people were wounded (none of them seriously). Other than the shooter, only one person died, a fellow named Steve Ercolino from Warwick, NY - which is a scant ten miles down the road from where I now sit. I wrote this paragraph last month. Forgive me but I just can't help repeating myself:

"The NRA types love to jabber on - like diseased little myna birds - about 'freedom'. We need to come to grips with some unpleasant realities. A society that lives in dreaded, mortal terror wondering when and where the next massacre of innocents will take place may indeed be many things - no argument from me there. "Free" they are not. Let's just stop kidding ourselves here and now, okay?"

6. The Queen of Standup

Phyllis Diller died on August 20 at ninety-five. That's a pretty good run any way you slice it or dice it. I always thought she was one of the funniest people who ever lived. She didn't merely blaze a trail - she incinerated it. Although she was not the very first woman to gain membership to that exclusive men's club of nightclub comedy, she was arguably the best. I always thought that the moguls of the film industry missed a good thing when they passed her by. Sadly, as far as cinema is concerned, the only thing she'll be remembered for are a couple of perfectly awful movies she made with Bob Hope - the most overrated comedian of the twentieth century. In the early sixties she made a series of comedy albums that have been out of print for decades. Let's hope they're reissued on CD in her honor.

7. I Can Something Nice about Romney/Ryan

For the first time in American history, there i
s a nationwide ticket without a Protestant on it. That's pretty much it. That is not meant as an insult to Protestants. It's just that - Jeez Louise! - they have run this country for too long.

8. I Can't Say Anything Nice about Ann Coult
er

What the hell i
s the matter with the American Broadcasting Company? What were they thinking when they put the likes of Ann Coulter on their Sunday morning panel? Are they kidding? She is proof that even a dingbat can have a good vocabulary. Fifty years ago a man named George Lincoln Rockwell was the head of the American Nazi Party. Back then, the only people who took the silly bastard seriously were his fellow American Nazis - or most of them anyway. He would end up being assassinated by one of them. The reason most Americans were unaware of him was because network executives weren't stupid enough to give him the exposure he so craved. That's no longer the case. Now Heaven knows, anything goes.

9. Keep Your Eyes on Fascist
Barbie

Sarah Pal
in is not a happy camper these days. The last thing the Republicans need to do is remind people of the historical blunder they committed four years ago when they anointed her as John McCain's running mate. Do I remember how nicely (for progressives) that worked out? You bet'cha! Anyway she's pissed that she hasn't been given a major role to play at this year's party in Tampa. If there's one thing we've learned about her is that she's one spiteful human being. My guess is that she will try to do something that will ever-so-subtly sabotage the event. I wouldn't put it past her. Hell hath no fury like our gal Sarah, you know what I'm talkin' about?

10. Those Magnificent Men and Their Lying Ma
chine

Count on the right wing SCREAM machine to go into overdrive in the seventy-four days left until the election.
We can expect a blitzkrieg of misleading propaganda between now and then. As hollow and pathetic as the Democrats are, the Republicans are beyond redemption. The only thing they have going for them is the BIG LIE. They can't argue their ideas based on logic or merit because those ideas are atrocious. I cannot emphasize this enough: if these jackals and jackasses are ever again able to regain control of both houses of congress and the White House, this country is finished. Think I'm kidding? Vote Republican. You'll deserve everything that happens to you.

On that cheerful note....Have a grand weekend, folks!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net


AFTERTHOUGHT, 8/25/12:

I don't have the software on my computer to create anything artistic. But I just got a great idea for anyone who does. You all remember this iconic poster of Barack Obama from the campaign of 2008. Could someone find a photograph of Paul Ryan in a similar pose and produce the same kind of tinted image? Only, instead of the word "HOPE" underneath, it should read "RAPE". Wouldn't that be a knee-slapper?

The two photographs at the top of this piece were taken on August 22nd by my VERY REPUBLICAN sister Susanne Dermigny at her home in Goshen, NY. Ain't she a good sport?

SUGGESTED READING:

Man Without a Country
by Kurt Vonnegut

Vonnegut's last book in not a novel but an essay. Written during the Bush years it's a scathing indictment of the America of the first decade of the twenty-first century. At the dawn of the second decade things have gotten only worse. Of course, I'm not giving away any state secrets there, am I.

BREAKING NEWS, 8/25/12, 3:30 PM:

Astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first human being to set foot on the moon, is dead at age eighty-two.

UPDATE, 8/26/12: A special tip of the hat and a sincere thank you to my Facebook friend Abbey Arletto for coming through on my re
quest for the Paul Ryan poster:

The Vision of Paul Ryan

88 Comments:

At 9:41 AM, Anonymous Michael said...

For a nice contrast President Obama supports partial birth abortion. 7-9 month old infants are butchered in their mothers womb. Yes Akins comments were insensitive but this is medieval.

 
At 10:46 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

I agree with you, Michael. Partial birth abortion is infanticide. No argument will make me change my mind on that one.

 
At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding the abortion issue, one must answer one very simple question.

Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in its mothers womb?

It's a yes or no question. After you answer then you can explain why this or that. But until you answer the first question, all other issues are moot.

 
At 11:49 AM, Blogger charles moore said...

On the abortion issue, I find it interesting that so many of those who froth at the mouth over the idea of abortion are so often the ones who want to start another war.

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger Laneman said...

Here is another simple question regarding abortion.

Do you think outlawing abortion will put an end to abortion?

 
At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Laneman,

Here is another simple question.

Aren't you glad your mom did not abort you?

 
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Be careful what you wish for. Ban abortions and you go back to medically dangerous back-alley abortions. Except of course for those who can afford to travel to a country that permits abortion, which was how things were before Roe v Wade in 1973. As an old geezer I have seen the carnage (although not personally) of back-alley abortions, and believe me, it is ugly.

Many people who oppose abortion believe the 1973 Roe v Wade Decision made abortion available any time during pregnancy. La de da, about like having your teeth cleaned. The Roe v Wade Decision said no such thing. I recommend that anyone commenting on abortion read that Decision (readily available on the internet). Most first-time readers will be very surprised.

Roe v Wade describes in great detail the history of abortion. Many seem to think the Warren Court was a bunch of flaming liberals but that was not the case. Yet Roe v Wade was a unanimous decision. That Decision balances the rights of the pregnant female to control her body and the rights of the fetus to be born. Focusing on viability, the Decision concludes that in the first trimester the rights of the pregnant woman are preponderant. In the last trimester when the fetus is usually viable the rights of the fetus become preponderant. In the middle trimester the decision to abort is primarily a medical decision.

I support Roe v Wade as a practical solution to an unsolvable problem. I also understand and respect the beliefs of those who oppose abortion.

What I cannot understand is how people who oppose abortion can countenance an exception for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Ask a person who opposes abortion why they want to ban abortion and invariably the answer is that abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn child. What I cannot understand is how someone who believes that abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn child would allow an exception for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. How is the unborn child resulting from rape or incest any less innocent or more deserving of being murdered?

Before we ban abortion I believe we must provide appropriate psychological and material support for pregnant women who otherwise might opt for an abortion, and solve the conundrum posed by likely threats to the life and health of the pregnant woman. We must also fully support and not abandon the innocent unborn child brought into this world by a ban on abortion. I doubt this will ever happen, and am reminded of the immortal words of George Carlin. “Pre-birth we love ya, post-birth you’re (insert F-bomb here).”

 
At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question is not should abortion be legal or not. The question is not will there be illegal abortions or not. The question is should abortion be allowed under this or that circumstance. None of that at all.

The simple yes or no question is

"Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in its mothers womb?"

 
At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
You said " Partial birth abortion is infanticide. No argument will make me change my mind on that one."

Will you therefore support by voting for a person who supports partial birth abortions? Isn't that the same thing as supporting partial birth infanticide? Would you be a support of partial birth abortion by allowing your tax dollar to be spent to provide same?

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

Funny we have no, none, zilch problems condeming living person to death (sometimes an innocent person). Go fight a ridiculous war and kill thousands of those 'collateral' citizens.

Yet it comes around to saving a woman's life - some can say "no abortion!"

This issue since the 60s has always been about money - not a moral issue. Question is simply who is going pay for all these immoral abortions?

The party of No has making this decision for all of us.

 
At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Joel said...

Nice pictures Tom. You look so...patriotic?

 
At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Picard said...

So your opinion, Yellowstone, is that this Anders Brevik guy deserves life more than an unborn child? Well he's got it.

I support the rape exemption but your comparison to the death penalty is lousy. We should execute murderers of infamous crimes regardless of their mental state/capacity.

 
At 7:26 PM, Blogger Laneman said...

Anonymous...

You're basically saying abortion should be illegal. Do you think that will stop or greatly reduce abortions?

What should be the penalty for a woman who seeks or obtains an abortion? What should be the penalty for the doctor who performs one?

 
At 8:05 PM, Anonymous Michael said...

uLaneman

You make the argument that an unborn child isn't human and thus killing he/she would not be murder. Just because the unborn can't file suit with the ACLU doesn't mean we should ignore their rights.

 
At 8:45 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

Picard-

We are talkng about morality. If you care at all about a human life, how can you accept (rhetorical) death as a consequence. Seriously, "Eye for an eye"?

On the flip side, an unwanted PG that would presummably lead to a still-born birth - or worse the death of the Mother is then acceptable to you?

On another hand, why should anyone, other than the Mother, make such irresponsible decisions?

The GOP is after less regulations - how about lightning up on the idea of legal killing!

"Thou shall not kill", except when . . .

 
At 11:05 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

The abortion issue is clouded by irrelevant arguments to the point that the real issue is lost.

Very few of us are saying there is NEVER a case where abortion isn't the necessary of two bad alternatives (e.g. - I don't accuse a soldier who dives on a grenade to protect his platoon of suicide). So, to talk about the 0.1% as basis for the 99.9% is diversionary.

What we are talking about is the casual use of abortion to the tune of roughly 1,000,000 per year.

Also - no, of course banning abortion won't stop people from seeking illegal and dangerous alternatives. No one says it will. Speed limits don't stop people from driving 80. We don't enact laws based on the efficacy of the enforcement, we enact laws based on morality (I dare you to find a law not based in morality). I realize we live in amoral times, so I understand why the abortion issue is so hotly debated.

If you want to look at it pragmatically, we have seriously reduced the numbers of last couple of generations. Our social insurance system will collapse due to our declining birth rates. "you reap what you sow".

The most outrageous claim made is the assertion that is forwarded with the most certainty. It is stated as if it is somehow a debate-ending ace-in-the-hole. That being, "It's the mother's choice". Simply because the woman bears the task of carrying the child DOES NOT give her the right to end another person's life. The very argument used "who are you to tell me what to do with my body" is the very argument that destroys itself in this case. Who is SHE to tell the unborn child he/she should be killed. That is the worst possible argument that could be made.

A modicam of critical thinking will do a world of good in this debate. But, as in most issues today, baseless rhetoric wins the day.

 
At 2:19 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Anonymous....

I am not a one-issue voter. Bill Clinton was a proponent of the death penalty, and yet despite that fact I voted for him in 1992 and 1996.

Cheers!

Tom Degan

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger De_Bill said...

People need to keep in mind that despite all the rhetoric, late term abortions are almost always performed because the life of the mother is severely compromised to the point that carrying the baby any longer could result in her death, the baby's condition is such that it wouldn't survive for long after birth if at all, or both.

Women who use abortion as their primary form of birth control don't wait for 7 - 8 months.

As for Kurt Vonnegut, today's Republican Party reminds me of a quote: “The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.” –Kurt Vonnegut, Sirens Of Titan

 
At 1:55 PM, Blogger Laneman said...

First of all a zygote, a blastula, a gastula are not a child, is not a person. And an abortion at that stage is not murder. And yes it is the mother's choice and it is her body and IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS or the government's what she decides to do.

It is quite telling the admission that making abortion illegal will not stop people from seeking illegal and dangerous alternatives. That we enact laws based on morality.

Here we have proof that the whole ant-abortion thing is about forcing your (religious motivated) morality on other people. It is not about stopping or reducing the numbers of abortions. This is especially demonstrated by the refusal to answer my questions regarding penalties. Should a women get life in prison or the death penalty after her third abortion or fourth or second? Should the doctor get the same? The anti-abortionists don't care. Once abortion is made illegal they will not care how many abortions occur or how many women die getting them. Their attitude will be, too bad, what you did was immoral and illegal and you should suffer the consequences of your actions even if the "unborn" die too. So long as their morality is forced on the rest of us they don't care about anything else.

 
At 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And an abortion at that stage is not murder."
Let me understand what you are saying, if the life of the 'zygote, a blastula, a gastula" is not ended, it will become what. A sperm whale?
Regardless of what you call it,the truth is it is human.

The question that everyone is dancing around is still unanswered.

Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in its mothers womb?

Yes or no?

 
At 2:38 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "...we are talking about is the casual use of abortion..."

I hardly think there's anything "casual" in the decision to obtain an abortion.


"We don't enact laws based on the efficacy of the enforcement, we enact laws based on morality (I dare you to find a law not based in morality)."

How 'bout laws prohibiting flag desecration? Are anti-desecration laws based upon morality?

Which leads to an even larger question: Whose morality should be legislated?


"If you want to look at it pragmatically, we have seriously reduced the numbers of last couple of generations."

True, along with a reduction in the overall crime rate.


"But, as in most issues today, baseless rhetoric wins the day."

So, it took you until the last sentence of your "baseless rhetoric" to come to terms with the truth? ;-)

 
At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we have proof that the whole ant-abortion thing is about forcing your (religious motivated) morality on other people."

WHOA Nellie, on one except you has brought up religion in this abortion debate. Sounds to me like you are assuming something.

Could it be that those who are opposed to the death penalty are also opposed to abortion for the same reasons? Are you saying that Tom's position is based on his religious morality?
Ask yourself what is the reason people oppose the death penalty and see if those same reasons could apply to being against legalized abortion?
If is because there is always the possibility in the use of the death penalty that an innocent person could be put to death? A legit concern. However in the act of abortion, what crime has the human baby committed, that would warrant the death penalty?

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Laneman replied...
"Here we have proof that the whole ant-abortion thing is about forcing your (religious motivated) morality on other people."

If I had a nickel for every time this worn out and senseless reply was lobbed... Name a law that doesn't involve morality. Murder, rape, theft... I beg you to tell me of a law not based on morality. The abortion question is no different. You cannot escape moral choices. Simply crying foul when I prefer my version of truth does not alter the fact that you advocate for YOUR version of the truth (YOUR morality).

Also, please name 2 or 3 laws that have erradicated the activity they were designed to. By your argument, we should immediately deregulate all business activity since businessmen don't always follow the laws of the land.

JG replied...
"How 'bout laws prohibiting flag desecration? Are anti-desecration laws based upon morality?"

Absolutely - somebody's.

JG also replied...
"Which leads to an even larger question: Whose morality should be legislated?"

Easy to answer. Obviously, I feel mine should, you feel yours should, Laneman feels his should, .... Get it? In our country, ostensibly, the majority opinion will rule the day. I will advocate for my opinion in any case. Fundamentally, by the way, if there is no absolute morality, then it is impossible to argue for anything beyond anarchy.

 
At 7:58 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "Absolutely - somebody's."

Then, by default, there's no such thing as "absolute morality" -- it's strictly a matter of each individual's sense of right and wrong.

"Fundamentally, by the way, if there is no absolute morality, then it is impossible to argue for anything beyond anarchy."

Well, that's not exactly true. Again, your sense of "absoluteness" may not also be mine (or Laneman's, or Tom's, or...(pick a name).

That's why we call it democracy!

 
At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no absolute morality, it's a matter of each individuals sense of right or wrong.

What a crock of liberal theology that has been accepted as truth. You mean to say there are mentally stable people who think its right to shoot up a movie theater, or the kill humans while still in their mothers womb?

Please!



 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger edwin_ said...

I think George Carlin said something like... if you're against abortion, stay away from the clinics

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "You mean to say there are mentally stable people who think its right to shoot up a movie theater, or the [sic] kill humans while still in their mothers womb?"

First of all, you'll have to ask Harley A. I was only answering his question about morality, and the concept of right versus wrong. {See above, and this time read it and comprehend it before you give your usual knee-jerk response.)

But, just for fun, I'll answer your questions with a few questions of my own:

Do presumably mentally stable soldiers think it's right to kill innocent and unarmed civilians?

Equally important, do you think it's right for soldiers to kill innocent and unarmed civilians?

 
At 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not going to pull your famous answer a question with a question JG.

You claim there are no moral absolutes, so you are ok with the killing of a human while in its mothers womb? Or for that matter shortly after it leaves it's mothers womb?
Are you absolutely sure of that? It's ok to kill you closest loved one, yes or no.

Even Tom has expressed a moral absolute with his position on partial birth abortions.

 
At 4:26 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Abortion as birth contol is repugnant and should not be necessary. The fact we have medieval-minded Papist politicians against birth control is also repugnant and unnesessary.

How "moral" is it for only Republican/conservative MEN to deny insurance provided contraception benefits and reproductive choice, and to dictate medical options for ALL women in ALL cases?

How about letting abortion policy be decided by women? Too radical?

Intolerable for authoritarian men, I suppose.

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Dave Dubya: "Abortion as birth contol is repugnant and should not be necessary."

Agreed.


"The fact we have medieval-minded Papist politicians against birth control is also repugnant and unnecessary."

Again, I agree.


"How about letting abortion policy be decided by women?"

As in each individual woman -- a resounding "I agree"!!

 
At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Abortion as birth contol is repugnant and should not be necessary."

Sounds like somebody is expressing a moral absolute.

How about answer the question of the day:

"Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in its mothers womb?"

 
At 9:26 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in its mothers womb?"

Simple answer first. I don't "support" abortion or the killing of any human being other than in self defense.

I'm guessing this could be a not-so-simple answer:

If the dehumanizing word "it" needs to be used instead of "him" or "her", then the "it" has not yet been humanized.

If there is no "he" or "she", then is "it" a conscious human being?

Is there a life form, other than a potential one, that fits the name "Homo sapiens"? If "it" has no developed nervous system or brain and cannot feel pain or perceive anything around it, is it a human being?

Can that organism be said to have lived a life at that point?

If an "it" is aborted, then no "she" or "he" or complete human being is killed.

Is it a reasonable comparison to say this is the same as killing a living, breathing, feeling, and thinking person?

For some it is, and for others it is not.

 
At 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess what you are telling me Dave is it depends on what "it" is.

Lets see if this removal the offending word "it" makes things clearer for you.


"Do you support the killing of a human while the human is still in its mothers womb?"

 
At 2:05 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Confused?

See the simple answer.

 
At 8:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

See the big word "if" in your answer.

You know that "it" is a human, not a tiger. Would you allow newborns who are without a "developed nervous system or brain and cannot feel pain or perceive anything around" be put to death? How about a human who is 5 years old or 35 years old, if they do not have a "developed nervous system or brain and cannot feel pain or perceive anything around Would they qualify as human?

"Do you support the killing of a human while the human is still in its mothers womb?"

 
At 10:11 AM, Anonymous James said...

"Do you support the killing of a human while the human is still in its mothers womb?" Yes

 
At 10:41 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Boy you folks out there so concerned about protecting fetuses sure don't give a shit about humans after they are born !! Where is your disdain for war, innocent people wrongly executed and those sent to prison for victim-less drug offenses ?? A bunch of hypocrites is what you are !!

 
At 10:42 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "How about a human who is 5 years old or 35 years old, if they do not have a "developed nervous system or brain and cannot feel pain or perceive anything around Would they qualify as human?"
Yes, they still qualify as human. But there's if there's no "you" in there, but...

First, humans with that tend not to live long outside the womb, "viable" or not. There are any number of "neural tube" issues (where the "tube" of the body doesn't develop or close properly above the brain stem or a little higher than that) where there are no good outcomes. It's basically enough brain to run the body, sort of, for a while.

Second, if I ever do not have a "developed nervous system or brain and cannot feel pain or perceive anything around" for God's sake, pull the plug. Let what's left of me go.
I mean, Christ on a pancake, we treat our pets more humanely than we do ourselves.

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks James for having the balls to state what you support! Unlike JG, Dave and MO you are not afraid to share your moral absolutism, while they try to dance around their position of the murder of humans while still in their mother's womb.
James, are you also ok with the death penalty?

 
At 2:25 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "Unlike JG, Dave and MO you are not afraid to share your moral absolutism, while they try to dance around their position of the murder of humans while still in their mother's womb."

What's moral absolutism?

 
At 2:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nope JG, not going to play your game of defliction by answering your question when you have not answered mie. Nice try.

 
At 4:05 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

JG -

To assert that there is no such thing as absolute morality is in itself an absolute statement.

Morality categorically presumes absolutes. What would be more correct to say would be that there is no morality - that such a metaphysical category does not exist. I could buy that as at least making a logically defensible argument (wrong but more logically sound).

Also, as I stated earlier in a different way, democracy imposes a corporate will vs. a personal will - but it imposes a will on people nonetheless. So, we need to dispense with the "you just want to impose your will" accusations. I want to advocate for my position for what I feel to be the best for humanity - as do others.

 
At 4:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abortion opponents have long decried Obama’s record in the Illinois legislature on regulating late-term abortions, but little money has been spent to advertise on the issue since he became president.

“Many children, more than you might think, actually survive failed abortions and are born alive. I know because I’m one of them,” Melissa Ohden says in the SBA List ad. “When he was in the Illinois state Senate, Barack Obama voted to deny basic constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion – not once, but four times."

She concludes: “I know it’s by the grace of God I’m alive today, if only to ask America this question:

is this the kind of leadership that will move us forward, that will discard the weakest among us? How will you answer?”

Well,is it?

 
At 4:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Ellis, tell us what crime, or what war the human that is killed in their mothers womb committed? Yet they are murdered without a trial, with out a defense attorney, they have no appeal process and they have no ability to to act in their own self defense.
As far as your claim that "you folks out there so concerned about protecting fetuses sure don't give a shit about humans after they are born".
Why don't you take a bold and unselfish step and contact Bethany Christian Services and ask about becoming a foster parent for newborns that are waiting for the ink to dry on their adopted parents paper work? Instead of calling others hypocrites, put down your joint for while and do something for the helpless. Instead of demanding someone else pay more taxes so the govt can pay for their abortion or wanting your freedom to stay stoned, why don't you think of others instead of your self? Try one selfless act just once.

 
At 8:34 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "To assert that there is no such thing as absolute morality is in itself an absolute statement."

I've never claimed there is absolute morality; I've also never claimed there is not. My reply to you (above, at 7:58PM) was in response to your "Absolutely - somebody's" response (above, at 9:56 PM).

There obviously are certain "absolutes" interculturally, but there also are many more that are not.

 
At 11:19 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Abortion opponents have long decried Obama’s record in the Illinois legislature on regulating late-term abortions, but little money has been spent to advertise on the issue since he became president."
The ad implies Obama would leave babies who survive abortions to die, which is inaccurate. Obama voted against the act, but noted Illinois state law requires physicians to use life-saving measures should an aborted fetus in fact be born alive. Obama maintained that his primary opposition to the state bill — of which the U.S. Congress passed a federal version in 2002 — was that it undermines Roe v. Wade and a women’s right to choose. (emphasis mine)

 
At 9:27 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Then, by default, there's no such thing as "absolute morality" -- it's strictly a matter of each individual's sense of right and wrong."

Of course not. Morality IS absolute. We all have our own moral opinions, some of which fit the Truth, some of which do not. Not all issues are moral issues. Burning a piece of cloth on the surace is not an immoral act. What's in the man's heart in the case of flag burning might be immoral (or it might be a display of righteous indignation). That the situation can change doesn't mean the moral truths change.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Anonymous, you have no idea how many people I take care of VOLUNTARILY you asshole. Don't judge me for recognizing the hypocrisy of your warped beliefs. It is the job of society ( i.e. the government ) to care for the needy. You folks only care about your greedy selves. Maybe if our resources weren't misspent on useless wars and misguided imperialism there might be some available for the peoples' legitimate needs ??

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "We all have our own moral opinions, some of which fit the Truth, some of which do not."

Yes, but each person's "Truth" may be different. Your sense of "Truth" is different than, say, a person who lives in Iraq who's a devout follower of Islam. Likewise, that person's "Truth" is interpreted differently than mine, for example.


"Burning a piece of cloth on the surace [sic] is not an immoral act."

and...

"What's in the man's heart in the case of flag burning might be immoral (or it might be a display of righteous indignation)."

You previously remarked that "[w]e don't enact laws based on the efficacy of the enforcement, we enact laws based on morality (I dare you to find a law not based in morality)". If that's the case, haven't I just found a law not based upon morality (i.e., flag desecration)? In other words, aren't we charging a person with a misdemeanor (or a felony) solely based upon what's "in the man's heart" (the intention behind) and not the actual burning of the cloth?

This is surely a slippery slope towards allowing "thought police" enforcement.

If so...I'm guilty as charged! ;-)

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous ex hopey changer said...

Ex-Obama ally Artur Davis — the former Democratic congressman from Alabama who in 2008 gave a speech in support of Barack Obama at the Democratic convention, but has since renounced him — says he feels at home with the Republican Party and is encouraging others to leave the Democratic Party too.

“Thank you for welcoming me where I belong,” Davis told delegates who gave him roaring applause throughout his Tuesday night primetime speech at the Republican National Convention.

He used his speech to encourage “Democrats and independents whose minds are open to argument” to “listen closely to the Democratic Party that will gather in Charlotte and ask yourself if you ever hear your voice in the clamor.”

“Ask yourself if these Democrats still speak for you,” Davis said.

“Now, America is a land of second chances,” Davis said, “and I gather you have room for the estimated 6 million of us who know we got it wrong in 2008 and who want to fix it.”

Davis said Americans supported Obama is 2008 because “no candidate had ever spoken so beautifully,” but said “dreams meet daybreak.”

“Maybe the Hollywood stars and the glamour blinded us a little: you thought it was the glare, some of us thought it was a halo,” Davis said.

 
At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it pathetic that NBC did not broadcast any speech given by a "minority" at last nights GOP convention?

Instead of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow, from Rev. Al Sharptoon, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt.

Throughout this convention, Chris Matthews, who still gets a tingle up his leg and then pees his pants everytime Obama reads from his teleprompter, has accused the Republicans of playing dog-whistle racist politics while on scene in Tampa. It isn’t clear, however, if Matthews will hurl accusations of
racism at Davis, Love or Cruz for speeches his network failed to broadcast.

The left just doesn't 'get it'...yet!!!! I'm thankful that Artur Davis does 'get it'. Welcome aboard Artur!!! It's great when someone sees the light, is logical, realistic and sees the truth.

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

If Artur Davis thinks going from bad to worse is an improvement he is an idiot. You can have him, he fits right in with the rest of you morons.

 
At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ellis,
How many of these people who you have voluntarily taken care of were helpless newborns?

 
At 1:40 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Taking care of helpless newborns is the government's job not mine. Take some of that wasted MIC money as use it for a productive purpose such as caring for those helpless newborns.

 
At 2:35 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "Why don't you take a bold and unselfish step and contact Bethany Christian Services and ask about becoming a foster parent for newborns...?"

Fortunately for these newborns, they have the chance to be adopted. Not so for the orphaned children in Iraq, whose parents were murdered by imperialist invaders and occupiers from western countries.

What were these children's sins -- being born Iraqi? What were the crimes committed by their parents that were worthy of sanctioned execution? Was it because they weren't born American? Was it because they were followers of Islam and hadn't accepted Christ into their lives? Or, was it because they were brown-skinned and Arabic, and therefore not worthy of the same "moral absolution" as those of Caucasian ancestry or European background?

These children will live a life of eating out of garbage cans and begging on the street. Why? Do they deserve the wretched lives of destitution created through the lies and greed of a select few, extrapolated through the unthinking foolishness of those willing to be tools and accessories in the injustice?

Tell me, who has created the greater sin?

 
At 3:14 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"Yes, but each person's "Truth" may be different."

Yes and no. You confuse terminology. Each person's understanding of truth differs. THE truth remains absolute. It must. If not, then you have no right to challenge anything I assert - my truth simply differs from yours. If I feel rape is ok, then my truth just differs from yours. THAT is the true slippery slope of post-modern thought on morality.

"This is surely a slippery slope towards allowing "thought police" enforcement." (and preceding paragraph on flag burning)

Again, in your analysis, you're confusing moral opinion with the moral truth that exists outside of us. I said the flag burning law was enacted based on morality - a group's opinion on what is moral - whether it truly is or not. In responding to your challenge regarding the ACTUAL morality of the situation of flag desecration, I said that it may or may not be a truly moral thing to do. Obviously, I feel laws can be enacted based on morality and be wrong. The morality behind our current legal stance on abortion is that it is wrong (immoral) for the state to interfere in what a woman does to the baby she carries in her womb. That is a moral judgment - and one I disagree with. Simply because it is a moral judgment doesn't make it a correct moral judgment...

Capiche?

I'm sure we have thoroughly bored most and have beat it to death by now.

 
At 3:42 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "That is a moral judgment - and one I disagree with. Simply because it is a moral judgment doesn't make it a correct moral judgment..."

So...whose moral judgment is right?


"I'm sure we have thoroughly bored most and have beat it to death by now."

That's okay. Possibly some will learn something.

 
At 9:12 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"So...whose moral judgment is right?"

That is the right question to ask I think.

 
At 11:28 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harley A.: "That is the right question to ask I think."

Exactly! So, without knowing for sure, the best we can do is leave it in the hands of humankind. The only reasonable way to do that is through our democratic processes.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Paul Ryan said...

Right now, 23 million men and women are struggling to find work. Twenty-three million people, unemployed or underemployed. Nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty. Millions of young Americans have graduated from college during the Obama presidency, ready to use their gifts and get moving in life. Half of them can’t find the work they studied for, or any work at all.

So here’s the question: Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?

The first troubling sign came with the stimulus. It was President Obama’s first and best shot at fixing the economy, at a time when he got everything he wanted under one-party rule. It cost $831 billion – the largest one-time expenditure ever by our federal government.

It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst which Jefferson's Guardian at Tom Degan's The Rant so often complains about. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal.

What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn’t just spent and wasted – it was borrowed, spent, and wasted.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Paul Ryan - or whatever-the-hell his name is - makes a very good point. The Obama stimulus was not enough, and spent unwisely. And to make matters worse, the president naively allowed a bunch of politicians (not a single economist) to distribute it. Paul Krugman pointed this out at the time and - as always - he has been proven right. Although contrary to right wing mythology, while the Obama stimulus was not a total failure (over thirty straight months of job growth) it could have been a lot more successful.

I've said it before and I'll say it again and again: We ignore Krugman to our own detriment.

Tom Degan

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

other's people money

AKA Constitutional taxation for public needs and government function.

Why doe Paul Ryan lie? Is it because he hates the Constitution? Or does he just hate fellow Americans?

 
At 2:44 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

Paul Ruin, um Ryan is SATAN in our God-less existence. If there was a God, there would be NO Paul Ruin.

 
At 3:30 PM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

But I'd ask Mr. Satan.....if he and the plastic man were to lie their way into office why should we expect anything better than what the Bush idiot's administration did for ( to ) us ?? Give us ONE reason to trust your lying asses. What ?? Oh yeah, we are really stupid that's right !! So then you admit if Amerikans were not as dumb as dog shit you scumbags wouldn't stand a chance to win ?? I thought so !!

 
At 6:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Obama stimulus was not enough, and spent unwisely."

Good point Tom, Even though the stimulus was the biggest in US history, we always run out of other people's money before we reach our dream of Utopia!

 
At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear dumb as a rock Ellis,
"Taking care of helpless newborns is the government's job not mine."

You do realize that the government gets it's money to take care of helpless newborns from you, if you pay taxes? If you don't pay taxes, then your statement explains a lot about your positions.
Tell us a little about those "many people I take care of VOLUNTARILY you asshole".
Or better yet explain why its the governments job to take care of the needy in light of your voluntarily helping many people?

Ellis, just answer this one question for us, it will go a long way on clearing up the muddle of your statements.

Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in human mothers womb? Do your support the govt using tax dollars to pay for the Do you support the killing of a human while it is still in human mothers womb?

 
At 7:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear frothing at the mouth liberals,
What is the lie you claim Paul Ryan said?

 
At 7:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Obama stimulus was not enough, and spent unwisely. And to make matters worse, the president naively allowed a bunch of politicians (not a single economist) to distribute it. Paul Krugman pointed this out at the time and - as always - he has been proven right."

At last a reason to vote for Obama, it was someone else's fault that his stimulus spending plan failed!! How original of him to blame someone else.

 
At 8:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just one of Ryan's lies, is that he cares about cutting the debt.
His votes in Congress added 5 trillion to the debt.

 
At 9:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But wait a minute, I thought all good progressives loved government spending?

 
At 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty. NOT A LIE

Nearly one in six Americans is living in poverty. NOT A LIE

What did the taxpayers get out of the Obama stimulus? More debt. That money wasn’t just spent and wasted – it was borrowed, spent, and wasted. NOT A LIE.


It went to companies like Solyndra, with their gold-plated connections, subsidized jobs, and make-believe markets. The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worst. NOT A LIE.


SO WAS THAT REASON I SHOULD GIVE OBAMA FOUR MORE YEARS? I MUST HAVE MISSED IT.

 
At 10:44 PM, Anonymous Seamus The Dog said...

I just want to say I'm glad I was on the roof of Mitt's car instead of the roof of Obama's mouth!

 
At 3:56 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "SO WAS THAT REASON I SHOULD GIVE OBAMA FOUR MORE YEARS? I MUST HAVE MISSED IT."

Because, any number of years under a Romney presidency would be infinitely worse.

That's the part you keep missing.

 
At 8:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Because, any number of years under a Romney presidency would be infinitely worse."

Really? Prove it

Remember, less than 30% of Americans polled call themselves liberals, so you JG, are not speaking for the majority of Americans

 
At 9:28 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

We don't want to speak for the majority of Amerikans. The majority of Amerikans are brainwashed and act against their own best interests. JG is correct that as bad as Obummer is Robmey and Ruin will be much worse for the average Amerikan ( but great for the 1% ). Now as to some of the other Anonymous remarks directed at me..... who I voluntarily care for and how I do it is personal and none of your business. Of course as a well educated person I realize it is the taxpayers' money the government uses to support helpless newborns. My issue is how this tax revenue is misspent by the establishment. IF they stop pissing away trillions of dollars on useless wars and MIC spending there would be plenty available for much needed social programs, helpless newborns included !! As to my position on " killing unborn humans " well I believe a woman's right to CHOOSE whether to carry a baby to term or abort it is paramount. Personally I believe conceived babies should be born. To do otherwise could interfere with the cosmic scheme of fate. Maybe if an aborted baby had been born that child might have grown up to be a scientist who found a cure for cancer. Maybe that baby might have grown up to drive drunk one day and kill say George W. Bush while at Yale, changing the course of Amerikan history for the better. So personally I think babies should be born absent extenuating circumstances. But as a society a woman's right to control the destiny of her own body must be honored. Don't worry the human race will not die out as a result of legal abortion, though all the other living species on Earth would benefit greatly from our demise. Have a great labor day weekend to all those lucky enough to still have jobs !!

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "Really? Prove it."

Hope I don't have the opportunity to do so.

 
At 3:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hope I don't have the opportunity to do so."
So why again should I vote for Obama? seems you cant answer that question

 
At 4:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous McReichstooge said...

So why again should I vote for Obama? seems you cant answer that question

The nation would be better off if someone so ignorant to ask this didn't vote at all.

 
At 12:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical liberal knee jerk answer. If the cant answer the question they attack the person who asked it.

YAWN, boring, get some new talking points.

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Answer given shortly BEFORE the question:

...as bad as Obummer is Robmey and Ruin will be much worse for the average Amerikan ( but great for the 1% ).

Knee jerk question asked AFTER answer given:

So why again should I vote for Obama? seems you cant answer that question

Now that tells the whole story, doesn't it?.

They refuse to listen (Yawn. Boring.) while demanding, " What did you say?"

These are minds so narrow and small they can be poured through a strainer and fit in a tea cup.

 
At 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, only the elite minority, called liberals like D.D. are fit to rule the rest of the great unwashed.
And when their liberal theology fails (and it will every time) they blame the recipients of their wisdom for the failure.
What a bunch of ego maniacs

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "...when their liberal theology fails (and it will every time)..."

There's no "theology" -- only what's democratic. It's your side that continually pushes your religious beliefs on those who don't care to have them.

By the way, liberalism is what has always been behind the great reforms and enlightenment periods of history -- never conservatism.

If conservatism prevailed in this country, you'd still be bowing to the monarch of England. Don't forget that.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Says you.
Liberalism has replaced the monarchy of England with Big Liberal Govt. Remember, less than 30% of Americans polled call themselves liberals.
Liberals are not the majority, they are a elitist ego manic driven minority, who by posts on this very blog beleive the 70% who are not liberals cannot take care of themselves. (all animals are equal, just some are more equal)
That is rule by the minority, not democracy.

 
At 12:40 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Yeah, when will you realize REAL democracy is Republicans' unilateral imposition of tighter restrictions on voter registration, photo ID’s, voter roll purges, Diebold (R) electronic voting machines, reduced hours of access to polls, fewer voting machines for Democratic leaning precincts, and corporate cash as free speech.

 
At 8:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DD,

You left out the First Lady urging her crowd to be sure and vote on Nov. 2.
Robo calls? Nah, Robo 1st Lady.

 
At 7:00 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous: "Says you."

No, says history...says reality.

 
At 10:23 AM, Blogger Ellis D., Esq. said...

No Anonymous....it's rule by people with intelligence. That's something conservatives greatly lack !!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home