Say Anything Blog

Wow, Bush is gonna support all this? Damn!

Well, some might get by the President if he engages in some deal-making to get other legislation passed, but also if Congress goes Dem it will likely stay that way for more than two years.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

-Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

Actually the Bush administration has no desire to get rid of these people. The fence is a token move. They don’t want these people legal, but they also don’t want them to leave. Its cheap labor and its union busting. I know because someone close to me had the chance to speak with the think tank that gave the Bush admin their policy.

-A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

Polygamy? That’s a bullshit lie. Also, I thought the push now was to accuse the Dems of being homophobes in re: this Foley thing.

-Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.

In theory it shouldn’t matter what a judge is. Their role is not to make laws or express political bias. Unfortunately when it comes to respecting precedent, conservative judges tend to lie alot more during their confirmation proceedings.

-Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

Totally. We should take away all womens rights and make them cover their faces in public. Who wants them to have control of their own bodies. My religious insecurities totally preclude all that.

-Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.

Well, since the very foundations of our country rest on the idea that we should have a separation of church and state… its not a bad move. Maybe we can let the kook Jesus freaks press their own currency with whatever they want on it.

-A return to the “Fairness Doctrine” in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows and could possibly affect blogs too.

This is just a joke and if anyone believes it then they are very very stupid.

-An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

Like ‘no child left behind’? We have seen tax increases under Bush.

-Passing a new “hate crimes” law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.  We could expect similar legislature for muslim criticism too.

That would be great cause we can punish the Dems for talking ill about Foley.

-There could be legislation prohibiting warrantless intelligence gathering.

That’s the difference between us and the fascists dumbass. Let’s preserve that eh?

-We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the USA.

And sending the message to Haliburton and KBR that its unacceptable to feed our troops dogfood for 20 bucks a plate and graf billions of dollars from us, the taxpayers. Also - who gives a shit if WE withdraw, half the force over there are private mercenaries. Why not just let them kill for us? They have no need to obey international laws anyway.

Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

Bush isnt up for election.

docdave: We weren’t talking about people, we were talking about killing “The UNBORN.” If unborn humans have an interest in living, we should ban contraception and legalize rape. Just think, every second you’re not having unprotected sex with a fertile woman, an unborn human is prevented from living.

D_C:  The human being comes into existence as a result of fertilization of a human egg by human sperm.  What part of that don’t you understand?  No conception, no human.  Is that so hard for you to grasp?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

So, according to D_C, conception=no conception.  Do you really believe that?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

d_c, you are really stretching the definition of an ‘unborn’ which in the context of abortion is a being that has already been conceived in a womens uterus.

Neither group has been “born” yet, so they’re both “unborn.”

So, this is a problem in logic for you.  You don’t understand the obvious difference between “conceived but not born yet”, and “never conceived”, then?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

docdave: It’s not a semantic problem; it’s a thinking problem.  Some here just can’t think clearly.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

How, using your absolutely insane definition, does an “unborn child” have an interest in living? How does it have an interest in anything? And how, according to you, are its interests more important than the interests of an unborn child (no quotes!) who has not been conceived yet?

how, according to you, are its interests more important than the interests of an unborn child (no quotes!) who has not been conceived yet?

Life begins after conception, not before it.

But what I’m wondering is how you define when a child has rights and when it does not.  At what arbitrary point in a child’s development does a child suddenly get, according to you, rights and constitutional protections?

SEems to me that drawing a line at any point beyond conception is just plain silly.  Children go through development from the time they are conceived right up through early adulthood and beyond.

Where do you draw the line, Davey?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

no conception=no child.  Don’t you get it?  Conception is fundamentally different from no conception.  They are not the same thing.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Why would an “unborn child” have any less “interest in living” than someone who is comatose, soundly sleeping, anesthetized in a doctor’s office or clinic, or passed out drunk on the floor?

dd: It’s really an artifact of leftie thinking, otherwise known as dialectical materialism.  It has to be either one thing or the other, with no gradations in between.  In D-C’s case, though, it’s simply an inability to make valid equivalences.  Conception=no conception is simply and obviously wrong.  Any conclusions drawn from using it as a premise are also wrong.  It’s not rocket science.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Bat: Of course, the proof of “interest in living” is in the living state of the human in question.  If they had no interest in living, they would simply die.  Life is persistent, which is why the irresponsible women have to kill it.  Without their violent intervention, life would continue.  That fits all the definitions of murder, but we allow a loophole only available to pregnant women, which violates Equal Protection.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Robert108,

I was being only half facetious, although to be candid, there have been times in my life when my personal “interest in living” has been substantially dimininshed by a prior interest in adult beverages of one sort or another.

Still, I was hoping that we were discussing more than a convenient phrase.  D_C apparently has nothing more substantial to offer, although it is often suggested that the vast majority of abortions are really a matter of convenience anyway.

Why would an “unborn child” have any less “interest in living” than someone who is comatose, soundly sleeping, anesthetized in a doctor’s office or clinic, or passed out drunk on the floor?

The sleeping person is rational, self-conscious, and can see himself as existing over time. When he went to sleep, he had an interest in waking up and accomplishing goals.

Fetuses, of course, have no interest in living, as they lack rationality and the ability to see themselves as existing over time.

Weak!  Very, very weak.

Fetuses, of course, have no interest in living, as they lack rationality and the ability to see themselves as existing over time.

Have any proof of this?

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Fetuses, of course, have no interest in living, as they lack rationality and the ability to see themselves as existing over time.

But who decided that rationality and self-awareness were prerequisites to having a right to life?

The 5th amendment states that all people have a right to life unless denied it by due process of law.  The American Heritage dictionary defines “person,” for legal purposes, as “A human.”

Are we really supposed to believe that unborn children and mentally handicapped people aren’t humans or people because they don’t match your arbitrary standards?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Fetuses, of course, have no interest in living, as they lack rationality and the ability to see themselves as existing over time.

Please explain how this state of affairs is any different among the aforementioned drunk, the comatose patient, and the fetus...excuse me… baby that was born 15 minutes ago.

Oh, and when you’re done with that, how about offering some medical proof to back up your assertion?  The idea that a “fetus” that will be delivered in two hours is cognitively diminished relative to the baby that was born two hours ago is simplistic, indefensible blather.

Bat: I got your sarcasm.  The only possible issue with Dave is one of his usual word games with the word “interest”.  He wants to make it mean “active interest” like in any red-blooded man has an interest in Scarlett Johanssen, for instance, but there are other meanings for the word “interest”.  One of them is to assume that continued activity assumes interest in that activity, as the human fetus continuing to live and develop, absent outside interference, indicates its interest in living.  As usual, with a reflexive arguer, it’s an attempt to make something out of nothing.
If, as the feminists assert, a woman has absolute control over her body, she didn’t want a pregnancy, it would end as soon as she decided she didn’t want it.  In fact, she requires outside assistance in the matter, which indicates the power lies elsewhere.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Batone: Please explain how this state of affairs is any different among the aforementioned drunk, the comatose patient, and the fetus...excuse me… baby that was born 15 minutes ago.

They’re not.

D_C,

But if there is no difference, then why the obviously artificial distinction allowing the deliberate killing of one, but not the others?  If it is acceptable to kill the inconvenient unborn fetus for it’s lack of “interest,” why not also kill the drunk who is taking up space under an overpass or on a park bench?

If it is acceptable to kill the inconvenient unborn fetus for it’s lack of “interest,” why not also kill the drunk who is taking up space under an overpass or on a park bench?

I misunderstood your last question. There’s a huge difference between the unborn fetus and the drunk, as I explained <a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/if_the_liberals_win_in_november/#c130739">here</a href>. There is no difference between the fetus and the newborn.

Bat: Sorry to see that you have enrolled in Troll Feeding 101.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

D_C,

It really isn’t quite that easy.  If you are going to rely for justification on the drunk’s state of mind before or after his inebriation, then you must logically allow that the fetus/baby will also improve it’s cognitive capability over time.  If you are going to defend abortion on the basis you’ve chosen here, that “lack of interest in life” standard, then you can hardly be selective about the application of your very own criteria.  At least not if you expect to be taken seriously.  If the fetus/baby is to be judged on it’s current cognitive capaility, then so too should the drunk.

Incidentally, please review your previous answer carefully, for if you are indeed acknowledging that “There is no difference between the fetus and the newborn.” then whatever is the TRUE basis for allowing the slaughter of the one, but not the other?  Apparently, as I stated above, this whole “interest in life” meme of yours is so much blather and nothing more.

for if you are indeed acknowledging that “There is no difference between the fetus and the newborn.” then whatever is the TRUE basis for allowing the slaughter of the one, but not the other?

Robert108,

Actually, I have some time between phone calls and appointments, and its kinda like a cross between practicing kata and doing crossword puzzles.  Nothing strenuous, you understand (at least not on this thread), but just enough to work up a small sweat.

Rather than “feeding a troll” I think of it as working up a mild appetite instead.

Still, I do appreciate your concern.  As I said yesterday, there are times when I need watching.  Thanks.

I thin(k) parents should be allowed to “slaughter” (nice hyperbole!) both. When have I said otherwise?

Well, that will certainly play real, real well in Peoria (both of them).  How very, um-m-m, progressive of you.

Bat: I know where you’re coming from.  I regard the trolls as more of a chew toy to use for refining my thoughts in writing, but there comes a time when you get tired of the same only BS, I guess.  No matter how many times Dave gets thoroughly refuted, he keeps coming back with the same nonsensical arguments.  I have concluded that he just has some emotional need to argue.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

That should be “...the same old BS...”

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

… but there comes a time when you get tired of the same old BS.

Robert108,

I agree completely.  Still the fact that those on the Left, whether they call themselves liberals, progressives or moderates, are little more than an intellectual chew toys (Great phrase!) is because of their paucity of intelligence and blatant irrationality.  Certainly it is demeaning to contend with self-deluding, intellectual dwarfs.  But self respect has never been a distinguishing feature of those on the Left in the first place.

They are emotionally driven, and the emotions, by definitions, are non-rational.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

docdave:

propagandize the people you want to eliminate as inferior non-humans

Personally I think we should off retards (or non-persons or whatever you call them). Alright brainwashed right wing Christians, lets have some addresses (loads trusty Colt automatic)…

Also I thought the Church says that ‘quickening’ happens in the third trimester. So as long as we aren’t smashing skulls and sucking out the brains who cares?

Gosh Doc… You certainly didnt sugar coat it. How depressing. PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE. (Dems stay home!)

I guess the catholics changed their stance at one point. What I don’t get is… how the fuck does how people feel about it affect the truth? I just dont think it does. There is no such thing as souls at all. ‘Quickening’ never happens. We are just like monkeies with too much to think about and fancy cars.

also - DocDave are you admitting, with the undies comment, that you are indeed brainwashed? That WAS one of my qualifiers...?

PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE. (Dems stay home!)

Yo ZsaZsa. If we’re out smashing arab heads over this democracy shit lets not discourage it at home eh?

Sparkie...The Dems will find ways to buy the homeless votes and those who are not registered on election day. So why bother? Oh and lets not forget the dearly departed???

Emmmmm. I think you are getting your own parties election fixing confused with the actions of others. I usually vote third party anyway, to show my contempt for all the shitheads that populate the popular parties. The area where I vote is very lib anyway. No amount of effort on my part is going to change it.

docdave:

Your just mincing words again.

There is a colossal difference between humans and persons. Do the damn research.

Sparkie ‘Freedom Fighter’ Arbuckle says, Totally. We should take away all womens rights and make them cover their faces in public. Who wants them to have control of their own bodies. My religious insecurities totally preclude all that.

What does that have to do with opposing abortion? The answer is nothing.

Personally I think we should off retards (or non-persons or whatever you call them). Alright brainwashed right wing Christians, lets have some addresses (loads trusty Colt automatic)…

It looks like you’re projecting a bit on the “brainwashed” claim. Anybody who stoops so low as to equate opposition of abortion with making a woman cover her face and taking away all of her rights is probably brainwashed to one degree or another.

There is no such thing as souls at all.

You speak for yourself here. One doesn’t have to be a “brainwashed right wing Christian” to see that there is a life force or a “soul”, if you will, that inhabits the living.

But what do you care? You’re just here to insult. You’re just a joker and not to be taken too seriously.

All that other stuff aside the dems said they are going to impeach bush and raise taxes. Both bad ideas and the tax raising will probably kill the money. Dems make it no secret that they want to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Wow, I must still be asleep. Raising taxes will kill the economy.

What, do you not have access to Google? If you are really unaware of the debates surrounding the concept of personhood (and not just acting like a dick), that’s just sad.

Dems want to impeach Bush as some sort of a payback for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. The difference is Bill Clinton was sworn under oath in a sexual harrassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Bill Clinton lied under oath. George Bush has no sexual harrassment lawsuit to lie under oath about. So how do they plan to impeach GWB? Especially when he is such a good President and the economy is doing so well etc.?

Fine docdave, I’ll do your work for you. Personal responsibility, eh? As an added bonus, I’ll do this in fewer than 15 seconds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

Ta da! Jeez

Gee Doc, it’s almost like there are “debates surrounding the concept of personhood.” Wait a tick, why are there quotes around that? Oh, that’s right, it’s exactly what I said you stupid dumbass!!!

I said that there are debates surrounding the concept of personhood.

You disagreed several times, and asked for proof.

I did this: Favorites + Wikipedia + “Personhood” + ctrl-V.

You went to the link, and backed up my assertion.

I pointed out that, in your haste to “burn” me, you actually just proved the comment that started this debate.

You then took your ball and went home.

In theory it shouldn’t matter what a judge is. Their role is not to make laws or express political bias.

========= what we can expect from a Democratic
== controlled Congress. 

== -Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

Isn’t this what Bush, Frist, and their corporate
friends want, as well??

== A push to make homosexual marriage ....

Big deal.

== and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

And polygamy?  Who is talking about polygamy?

Orrin Hatch?

== Only liberal judges will be appointed.

Big deal.

== Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of
== Christian influence…

Bush is doing that already. 

== Every conservative talk show host will be forced
== to give a liberal equal time on every issue.

Like colmes on Foxsnooze??

== -An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

How about to eliminate the deficit?

== -Liberals will give terrorists from other countries
== who try to kill Americans the same rights American
== citizens enjoy under our constitution.

You mean go back to the Constitution?

== In addition there could be legislation prohibiting
== warrantless intelligence gathering.

Why do you hate our system of laws?

== We will withdraw from Iraq,…

Good.  I was there in Mosul.  We don’t belong
there.  It ain’t our country.

===//should take heed of this possible consequences.

Look at the bozo that we have had in the white
house these past six years.

== Only liberal judges will be appointed.

Big deal.

It’s a big deal because we don’t want legislation from the bench. Liberal judges have a tendency to do that sort of thing.

== Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of
== Christian influence…

Bush is doing that already.

Oh yeah? How?

== Every conservative talk show host will be forced
== to give a liberal equal time on every issue.

Like colmes on Foxsnooze??

He was alluding to the “Fairness" Doctrine. Many libs want it reenacted.

== -Liberals will give terrorists from other countries
== who try to kill Americans the same rights American
== citizens enjoy under our constitution.

You mean go back to the Constitution?

Go back to? The Constitution applies to American citizens.

== In addition there could be legislation prohibiting
== warrantless intelligence gathering.

Why do you hate our system of laws?

He’s talking of legislation. Pay attention.

== We will withdraw from Iraq,…

Good.  I was there in Mosul.  We don’t belong
there.  It ain’t our country.

Neither was Germany or Japan. Using your logic we should have stayed out of those countries as well.

Look at the bozo that we have had in the white
house these past six years.

I think that the “bozo” here is you.

== Only liberal judges will be appointed.

Big deal.

It’s a big deal because we don’t want legislation from the bench. Liberal judges have a tendency to do that sort of thing.

If there’s one thing I know, its alot of powerful judges and I know that the judges who fancy themselves as senators and dont respect precedent tend to be conservative. Clarence Thomas, for example, was the biggest LIAR during his confirmation. Something we like to get down on libs for.
Also you guys keep harping on this ‘fairness doctrine’ but its so much crap. Any lib who talks about it is almost as stupid as the people who take them seriously.

...and dont respect precedent tend to be conservative.

Where does one get the idea that once an issue is decided in the courts that the issue is hereby forever settled?

Clarence Thomas, for example, was the biggest LIAR during his confirmation.

“LIAR” - just another word that is nearly meaningless coming from people like you.

Also you guys keep harping on this ‘fairness doctrine’ but its so much crap. Any lib who talks about it is almost as stupid as the people who take them seriously.

Uh huh. Sure. It’s the libs who want to reenact it. It’s the libs who defend it. I guess pointing that out makes me “stupid”.

Uh huh. Sure. It’s the libs who want to reenact it. It’s the libs who defend it. I guess pointing that out makes me “stupid”.

What I’m saying is that its funny anyone would sweat it because BS like that has no chance of becoming law. Especially if they are trying to get private news or talk radio interests to play ‘fair’ or whatever. Luckily some of the people conservatives hate the most, like Leahy for example, would never support stuff like that. Neither would Linc Chaffee, but the good ole GOP made him spend sooooo much money in his primary by backing an idiot that now that seat is very much in jeopardy… and Whitehouse, the Dem, is a schmoozy loser. I’ve met him and he is like a hollow mob boss who wants you to like him but has nothing but a greasy smile and a silly name to work with. D’OH! Maybe we should let this ‘fair’ crap bother us. As long as we spend our money on fringe idiots in Liberal states where we just happen to have a moderate placed by miracle…

Clarence Thomas, for example, was the biggest LIAR during his confirmation.

Wrong.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.