Previous 11 - 20 Next
yeah, yeah. this is the little fantasy that Libertarians and Independents (and far too many Conservatives) told themselves in 2008 when they thought the Republican presidential candidate seemed too much "like a Dem" and refused to vote for McCain in "protest". the result was not a "clean sweep", but 4 years of Obama. they told themselves the same fairy tale in 2012 -- when there was no excuse for not knowing better -- because they thought the Republican candidate was too much "like a Dem" and refused to vote for Romney in "protest". the result was not a "clean sweep" but rather 4 MORE years of Obama. either continued (mis)rule by Democrats is your actual goal, or you are engaged in a willful suspension of disbelief AND are impervious to learning from your mistakes. here's a happy medium that should be a reasonable compromise -- assuming you actually do NOT want more of the same for your country as we've had since 2009. VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN IN EVERY RACE. then, once you have rid us of a large block of the existing problem and stymied the president's future plans for packing the SCOTUS and executive departments with more Lois Lerners and Eric Holders, you can set about on "Phase 2" -- tweaking the Republican caucus to remove the ones you think are too much "like a Dem" by voting for their opponent in their next PRIMARY. cause staging "protest votes" in a GENERAL election is simply self-defeating, literally as well as figuratively.
hmmm. interesting. so what NARAL would call it when a NARAL-supported abortionist performs the following acts: 1) using misoprostol (often in conjunction with other drugs) to induce labor to expel a very early-term living human female from the womb alive, subsequently to die without access to the life-sustaining amniotic sac? 2) using a vacuum apparatus to suck an early-term living human female from the womb, her recognizable body parts being clipped apart by the edges of the tube? 3) using a curved blade to slice an early/mid-term living human female into pieces and then scraping her body parts from the womb? 4) using forceps to tear off the limbs and crush the head of a mid-term living human female -- her skeleton is now too hard to slice apart -- and to extract the torso, limbs and head from the womb? 5) injecting saline solution, digoxin, or potassium chloride into the amniotic sac surrounding a mid/late-term living human female to chemically burn her lungs and skin and stop her heart so that she can be expelled dead from the womb? 6) partially birthing a mid/late-term living human female in breech position until her body is fully delivered but her head remains just inside the birth canal, poking a hole at the base of her skull, sucking her brains out, and then using forceps to crush the skull and complete the delivery of her now lifeless form? these acts , favored by NARAL -- these, let us be clear, are apparently NOT considered "molestation" according to NARAL. so, what ARE we to call them then? NARAL would insist they are mere "medical procedures", known within the medical community by the foolwing terms: 1) medical abortion, 2) vacuum aspiration, 3) dilation and curettage ("D&C"), 4) dilation and evacuation ("D&E"), 5) saline or induction abortion, and 6) intact dialation and extraction ("D&X"). each describes increasing stages of moral decay and inhumanity, though couched in euphemistic technical language. but remember: none represents a "molestation" of our innocent developing human female! certainly no "war" on these nascent women. not to NARAL, anyway. (uh-oh! look out! beware! there's a Republican with a picture of a fetus over there! there's the real danger, you know!)
by the way, the above fact regarding causes of death in human beings is based on comparing the causes of BORN human beings compiled by WHO and the number and causes of abortions compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a "pro-choice" organization with a proclaimed mission statement of ensuring the availability of all "reproductive choices" to all women everywhere) from data they collect from the abortion providers themselves (e.g., planned parenthood, pregnancy clinics, hospitals, private practitioners, etc). i didn't just pull it out of thin air the way people like Filipovic do for the consumption of readers desperate to be told things that make them feel good about themselves.
Filipovic lives in a world where the #1 cause of death in Human Beings is NOT Cancer, Heart Disease, War, Crime, Ebola, or any other cause on the World Health Organization's official list of causes of death, but rather Elective Abortions, where neither the life of the mother nor that of the maturing fetal human being is a concern. (The official WHO list, you see, does not include the death of unborn humans in its counts.) Nevertheless, "instead of absorbing the scale of that atrocity", Filipovic on a monthly basis in her magazine "decides to make a point about abortion rights. That's not just tone-deaf; it's deranged.”
hmmm. liars AND morons. Chick-fil-A is one of the most philanthropic companies in America, and in my experience has never sought to use a charitable event in an overtly promotional manner. i've worked on Habitat for Humanity houses in several states, and in each case local Chick-fil-A restaurants have always risen to the occasion to provide lunches for the volunteer workers -- yet not once in my three decades of involvement in such builds have they ever gone so far as to post a sign or banner advertising their name or even parked a vehicle with any Chick-fil-A promotional decals or the like on it at the site. they simply come by around noon in a personal car with the meals and unload them onto tables or hand them out to the workers. that's it. in addition, they have always stepped up to help the Haiti Mission with which i have worked for several years as well, and again have never even once asked to display any obvious promotional material. their sandwiches are wrapped in Chick-fil-A paper, obviously, because that's what they have to keep the food sanitary, but no one who isn't eating one of them would have the slightest idea that they were donating anything to either cause. and in NO case did they ever sell anything where even one penny went into their pockets. you don't have to like their food. you don't even have to like their late owner. but to ascribe any pecuniary motive to this company's charitable work is to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
for a change of pace, how about: "When Clinton Lied...Look who Died" he lied to Haitians in 1992 and hundreds of refugees died at sea for believing him. he lied about not needing ground troops in Bosnia to do the job right, allowing the Serbs to step up their ethnic cleansing, costing an additional 200,000 ethnic Albanian deaths by UN estimates before the US air war could stop them. he lied about the efficacy of economic sanctions in Iraq, keeping them in place years after he should have toppled Hussein militarily. international relief organizations estimated 500,000 children died from deprivations Saddam never felt. he lied in calling massacres in Rwanda mere civil war, not "genocide", because (as the head of the NAACP put it) telling the truth would have triggered automatic UN/US peacekeeping deployment and Clinton feared the political backlash of another fiasco like Somalia. Millions of Africans died from his inaction. he lied to a judge – ostensibly "about sex", but really to obscure a pattern of sexual harassment. that time, no humans died – merely a pillar of American government: that the Judiciary is a co-equal of the Executive, able to force even the president to testify truthfully before the court. the truth is that Bush could have fought a hundred Iraq Wars without approaching the body count from Clinton lies. so, anybody care to try their hand at "When Obama Lied...Look who Died"? to get things started, i'll spot you John Christopher Stevens...
In response to:

Oh Jeez: Harry Reid Told Some Asian Jokes

cordeg Wrote: Aug 22, 2014 10:06 PM
Harry Reid: "Sometimes I say the wrong thing.” only when you open your mouth, Harry.
this isn't "running away from" Obamacare as a useful target -- it's simply that Obama is creating so many catastrophes that the useful targets are too numerous to allow the GOP to concentrate too much of their focus on any one of them. :-)
maybe we should listen to him. after all, if anyone's an expert on "feckless delusion", it's the current occupant of the White House!
I'll bet. It's the world's most consequential "do over" and for the benefit of discarding one's ultimate responsibility as a member of the human race it's cheap at twice the price. Know what else produces "feelings of massive relief"? -- Discovering your bank screwed up your mortgage and now can't collect what you rightfully owe them -- finding the teacher's test answer sheet and not saying anything about it so you can ace your test -- using your bank card to get $20 from the ATM and having it give you $2000 but only debit your account for the $20 and knowing you can now afford that vacation you wanted to take -- stumbling upon a guy having a heart attack and realizing it's the jerk who tormented you all through high school and just standing there and letting him die because you consider it justice -- having someone cut you off on the road and then later catching up to them on a deserted side road with their four-ways blinking because they broke down and can't get cell service and just passing them by to get even -- finding a rival banker's misplaced $8000 deposit and hiding it so they will be ruined and you can acquire their assets at fire sale prices (apologies to Frank Capra) oh, yeah, there are a lot of bad acts that can bring "feelings of massive relief", provided of course that you are the kind of person who is willing to find relief for yourself at the expense of others.
From the Democratese-to-English Dictionary, 2014 Edition: 1) "no one was deliberately misled" = everyone was misled as a result of political spinning that merely incidentally failed to convey the truth 2) "no military assets were withheld" = military assets were merely passively not provided because no one seemed competent to understand the situation 3) "no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given." = no order to actively respond was given because -- well, see #2 above. so, you see, in Democratese, this is a 100% accurate summary of the report.
Previous 11 - 20 Next