1 So the Dem's draw the line at diversity with nut-jobs?

2 Hehe, it looks like Darth-Rove's plan is going exactly according to schedule. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

3 There are still a lot of Democrats who are proud of Dean and defend his comments. They are criticizing those Democrats who are criticizing Dean. These criticizers are perilously close to being thrown down the stairs by their bretheren for being Dean Apostates. I would direct you to Kos as an example, but would highly recommend wearing a full body condom before hand and taking a decontamination shower afterwards.

4 Oh Yeeeeaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Gotta love the guy for pure entertainment value.

5 Name change??? I looked but still ??? Have you married or something?? If so congratulations. If not ????

6 >>>"There are still a lot of Democrats who are proud of Dean and defend his comments." How can Dean's comments be defended? First he says he hates Republican, then he says Republicans are white christians, does that mean he hates white christians? What a fool. Even Dems know what a moron he is.

7 Howie: I won't use the wine line again. Are you responding to e-mails via these posts by accident???

8 "There are still a lot of Democrats who are proud of Dean and defend his comments" -----Oyster "How can Dean's comments be defended? " -----Carlos Remember Carlos, these are the Black Helicopter people. Up is down, black is white, freedom is slavery, etc. ad infinitum. If you want to see what it's like to be a liberal, try an experiment: Read 1984 (Orwell), and Brave New World (Huxley), and at every instance where you feel thankful that our world is not like those in the books, remember that this is where liberals say to themselves; "too bad our world isn't like that". Liberals have even managed a form of newspeak, where diversity means conformity, equality means primacy, tolerance means intolerance, and liberal no longer means liberal, from Latin for "free", but now means something more along the lines of totalitarian fascist. Remember that whatever the libs accuse their enemies of is that of which they themselves are the most guilty. It's an old trick perfected by Lenin and taught to generations of Communist agents and their useful idiots. The only known antidote to liberal propaganda is the truth, which is why they fight so hard to control the media, for he who controls the media controls the truth.

9 My blog name changed from "Descarte's Bar and Grill" to "Have I got a story for you..." Although I did get married 10 months ago... :-)

10 Maximus Inaccurate: In response to this... "If you want to see what it's like to be a liberal, try an experiment: Read 1984 (Orwell), and Brave New World (Huxley), and at every instance where you feel thankful that our world is not like those in the books, remember that this is where liberals say to themselves; "too bad our world isn't like that". Liberals have even managed a form of newspeak, where diversity means conformity, equality means primacy, tolerance means intolerance, and liberal no longer means liberal, from Latin for "free", but now means something more along the lines of totalitarian fascist. Remember that whatever the libs accuse their enemies of is that of which they themselves are the most guilty. It's an old trick perfected by Lenin and taught to generations of Communist agents and their useful idiots. The only known antidote to liberal propaganda is the truth, which is why they fight so hard to control the media, for he who controls the media controls the truth." You know, EVERY SINGLE little POINT you just made...is EXACTLY what liberals think THE RIGHT WING says or thinks. They accuse the right of everything you just wrote. So where does that leave us? How about this for an idea...maybe the USA can stop being so divided and split up the middle and actually unify to defeat the evils that plague us? Wouldn't that be a little more productive? Ok Carlos, I know...I'm guilty of being a Utopianist.

11 Osamasilly, Psst. George Orwell was a leftist. One that recognized the evil tendencies of marxist thought.

12 osamabeenstupid, I won't respond to your post, because it would be like responding to a massive chili fart with a discourse on Plato; it just wouldn't do any good no matter how well worded, because farts aren't communication, they're sounds made by gas being expelled under pressure. Hot air, as it were. If you can ever rub your two neurons together and come up with something intelligent to say, you may not get used as the resident whipping boy.

13 Minimus Phallus....the only chili fart that was ripped in this room was by you...but you're sittin' there sniffing' and saying' "Who farted?" I think you should rub your own two neuron-small testes together and come up with a real reply to a very valid point: Liberals accuse the Right of everything you said. Back up your argument, before you become the resident hypocrite.

14 SPQR: I know Orwell was a Lefty. That book was a warning to us all.

15 IM: I thought of you when I saw this article, hehehe: http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4123

16 Part of that newspeak includes "abortion is a right." Osama is right. The Left DOES say those same things about the Right (Bush=Hitler, etc.). But only one side can be right, and in this case, I think the liberals are wrong. Should the Left and Right we unite against the more obvious evils in the world? Perhaps, but many see the Orwellian thought IM referes to as much more insidious and thus, dangerous.

17 YBP: Abortion! Yeah, touchy subject with many. It seems like a no-win argument to me since Liberals view not being able to choose as the government's control of a woman's body. They also feel that women will do it anyway, just less safe and illegal. Most of the Right thinks it's murder, which when it boils down is all about how you define life. Is it conception? Reflex? Movement? Having a nervous system? Pulse? Or does 2 or 4 cells alone qualify as a soul with a right to live? Is a stem cell life? If life is so important to the Right, then why does the right start so many wars? This is another Liberal accusation of the Right's hypocrisy...Bush talking about the importance of the "Culture of Life" while waging a war and being Mr. Death Row in Texas. Despite what anyone thinks in here, I'm not concrete on my view of many of these subjects. I am pro choice on abortion for a few reasons, but with a twist. I think only women should be able to vote or decide on the laws surrounding this. I also think that once a fetus has developed past a few cells and looks human, has a pulse and a developing nervous system, it is a person with a future...if the conception wasn't rape or molestation, I think it's wrong to abort. As far as which side is right? Neither. They are both wrong in my eyes. You can argue till you're blue in the face about who controls the media ex: NY-Times or MSNBC vs. FOX, etc. Maximus can have paranoid delusions about Liberals helping plan 9/11 with Osama and Liberals aiding terrorists in any way they can or the Liberals can have nightmares about the government controlling them, ruining the environment, and non-stop wars, etc. The right and the left all have polarizing opinions which I find quite unhealthy...just look at how divided the last election was and how much hate there was floating around. Is our country really two countries trapped in one? When is the last time it was unified? The only thing I do know is that I won't put myself in a little box called Right or Left. I think there are great things to draw from both, and then plenty or crap to dismiss as well. I do tend to form opinions based on logic rather than religion...for instance I think it's absurd to urge abstinence. The Pope must be insane to think that condoms aren't more important to stop AIDS in Africa, or that anyone can keep horny teenagers from fooling around. The day that all religions realize they cannot defeat nature, we will live in a better world. No religion or culture has EVER been able to keep people from having sex. Nature always finds a way, and in extreme cases (priest celibacy) the outcome can be quite nasty. I never hear about Rabbi so-and-so molesting tons of little boys. Sure, a Rabbi can screw around, but Judaism is messed up as well. I can find beef with almost any religion pretty quick. Enough of my rant...what do you think?

18 Osama: Many right wingers are against organized religion. As a Christian, I understand that Jesus set about to set up a religion that He said He would be with intil the end of time. Even if I were not religious, I say it's best to err on the side of life--innocent life--thus destroying the argument who point out that pro-lifers should be against the death penalty too. And they should--the Church points out that it should be used sparingly. As for children born out of rape--I still see that baby as a person who deserves his right to life protected, even if the backgroung to his creation does not fit my ideal vision of how it should have come about. There has been abuse in other religions as well--Judaism, protestant, etc. And it's not because of the variuous churches, per se--it's because men in them do not listen to their teachings. But the R.C. Church is under attack the most because it is the one true Christian faith. Some older comments/arguments I made on another post: Calling abortion a "right" is a new trend. Protecting human life is not a radical new thing, but fundamental to the sanity of any civilized society. I'm positive the Founding Fathers, who discuss the God-given rights of those created by parents (and indirectly, through Him), would be aghast. Practically, 100% of a person's genetic makeup is determined at the moment of conception. Science and medicine define being a person (human) by genetic means. According to science and medicine, a fetus is a distinct organism. Thus, killing a fetus is killing a potential baby. Killing a child is killing a potential man or woman. It's killing innocent life, and that's what those who oppose abortion are against. No one is saying that babies should have "rights equal to or superior to a woman's." Pro-life proponents are simply saying that babies have a right to life. Regarding Development: Some imply that a fetus is not a thinking, feeling, conscious human being. Current, valid science indicates that a fetus is not a senseless mass of tissue, as some people have believed in the past. According to Planned Parenthood, a fetus is "the organism that develops from the embryo at the end of eight weeks of pregnancy and receives nourishment through the placenta; the fetus continues to develop until the pregnancy ends." According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, an organism is "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". In other words, Planned Parenthood admits that a fetus is an individual, and a living being. According to Dr. Ruth's Encyclopedia of Sex, "The beginning of the fetal period [is] arbitrarily designated by most embryologists to occur eight weeks after fertilization. At this time, the embryo is nearly one and one-half inches long. Few, if any, major new structures are formed thereafter; development during the fetal period of gestation consists of the maturation of structures formed during the embryonic period." In other words, the basic structure of the baby has already been formed. Planned Parenthood admits this. Now, remember, this is still within the first "trimester." The baby has a small brain. The baby can feel pain. The baby can feel vibrations. The baby has vague vision and hearing. The baby has reactions which indicate a simple intelligence. Admittedly, the baby is undeveloped enough at this point that its sensations and thoughts are not similar to adults'. However, the baby is a thinking, feeling human being. I believe that laws should support this fundamental belief. Another set of arguments against abortion would be philosophical arguments. A key philosophical question is where do you draw the line? Put another way, when does a human being become a person? The Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade separated personhood from humanity. In other words, the judges argued that a developing fetus was a human (i.e., a member of the species Homo sapiens) but not a person. Since only persons are given 14th Amendment protection under the Constitution, the Court argued that abortion could be legal at certain times. This left to doctors, parents, or even other judges the responsibility of arbitrarily deciding when personhood should be awarded to human beings. The Supreme Court's cleavage of personhood and humanity made the ethical slide down society's slippery slope inevitable. Once the Court allowed people to start drawing lines, some drew them in unexpected ways and effectively opened the door for infanticide and euthanasia. Look at the situation of the poor woman in Florida, starved to death. Regardless of her thinking capabilities, SHE WAS STILL A WOMAN. The Court, in the tradition of previous line-drawers, opted for biological criteria in their definition of a "person" in Roe v. Wade. In the past, such criteria as implantation or quickening had been suggested. The Court chose the idea of viability and allowed for the possibility that states could outlaw abortions performed after a child was viable. But viability was an arbitrary criterion, and there was no biological reason why the line had to be drawn near the early stages of development. The line, for example, could be drawn much later. Ethicist Paul Ramsey frequently warned that any argument for abortion could logically be also used as an argument for infanticide. As if to illustrate this, Dr. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, demonstrated that he was less concerned about the ethics of such logical extensions and proposed a more radical definition of personhood. He suggested in the British journal Nature that if "a child were considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an 'acceptable member of human society." Obviously this is not only an argument for abortion; it's an argument for infanticide. Other line-drawers have suggested a cultural criterion for personhood. Ashley Montagu, for example, stated, "A newborn baby is not truly human until he or she is molded by cultural influences later." Again, this is more than just an argument for abortion. It is also an argument for infanticide. More recently some line-drawers have focused on a mental criterion for personhood. Dr. Joseph Fletcher argues in his book Humanhood that "Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are." This is not only an argument for abortion and infanticide; it's adequate justification for euthanasia and the potential elimination of those who do not possess a certain IQ. In other writings, Joseph Fletcher suggested that an "individual" was not truly a "person" unless he has an IQ of at least 40. There are a number of biblical arguments against abortion. But there are also medical, legal, and philosophical arguments against abortion. You asked me what I thought! Peace be to you and yours, my friend!

19 To reply: "Even if I were not religious, I say it's best to err on the side of life--innocent life--thus destroying the argument who point out that pro-lifers should be against the death penalty too. And they should--the Church points out that it should be used sparingly." Keep in mind sometimes I state theories that aren't my own, especially in the last post comparing left and right. I'm less concerned about a killer being executed, but more concerned about innocent people in Iraq (or anywhere) being killed, and anyone would be ignorant to say that innocent people by the thousands haven't died there. "As for children born out of rape--I still see that baby as a person who deserves his right to life protected, even if the backgroung to his creation does not fit my ideal vision of how it should have come about." I can totally see your point there. I almost agree with you, only I don't think I can say how I'd really feel about it without being in the situation. I can't imagine ever having to go through a painful choice like that...but what about molestation cases? Cases where someone would be born with messed up genetics and severe birth defects? Your post had some very interesting points...but I have to say it almost seems absurd to me to separate person from human. I feel as if they are one and the same...regardless of intelligence or being in the womb. I think that someone should abort BEFORE there is a pulse, brain stem, skeletal system, etc. But then what justifies men in making this kind of decision for women?

20 Osanma: "Cases where someone would be born with messed up genetics and severe birth defects? " But this happens in "regular" families, too. No one advocates killing these people. (Won't bring up the Nazis!) Surely the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to those born in less than desireable circumstances. "but I have to say it almost seems absurd to me to separate person from human. I feel as if they are one and the same...regardless of intelligence or being in the womb." I agree--a person is a person friom conception, my original point. Great Scott, if we killed because of a lack of intelligence, huge numbers from the beltway in D.C. would be exterminated! I believe that the battle to maintain the dignity of human life is a genderless issue. The issue transcends gender. We must have some basic laws to govern the human family, whether they are instuted by men or woman. Or we may have men questioning legislature propagated by females that impeded their perceived rights. (Can't think of the logical fallacy here...) Hey-thanks for listening!

21 YBP, you are quite convincing, I must say. You definitely have me questioning my stances on these things. After your lasts posts, I'd have to saying I'm leaning more towards the genderless take. The only thing I still don't get is this: I'm not saying people born with genetic mutations under natural circumstances should have been aborted...I'm saying that in cases of severe molestation (the other word can't be posted in here) I can't justify a 14 year old kid having to give birth to her dad's kid. It seems completely wrong to me.

22 Osamabeenvotin': Thanks, friend. I always think it's important to listen to the arguments of others. After all, we hopefully all want the Truth and want to do the right thing. As far as the fourteen year old thing, it IS tough. But two wrongs don't make a right, to use some wisdom from the mouth of babes. I would have to say that this person's sacrifice and unselfcenteredness will be rewarded in the next life. Christ tells people that his followers will suffer in this life for following Him. This may be the cross she has to bear. But this life is a drop in the bucket compared to the infinity of the next! Truth will set us free. Again, I appreciate your intellectual curiosity--something we ALL need more of, eh?

23 YBP: No problem...I always have an open ear & I'm glad you do too. Interesting you say "Truth" since we perceive our existence through dualities. I've often believed that our consciousness just isn't capable of knowing a mere fraction of what our universe or existence really is. Our bodies seem extremely limited in capacity to experience. Anyway, tangent. I see what you're saying, but it's hard for me to relate to since it hinges on a faith which I've never been able to believe in. Granted, I've gleaned some amazing values or truths from Christianity...but to me suffering now for a better eternal life echoes of many other religions where this was used as bait to do something horrible (9/11). I mean no insult to your faith by saying this...because that is my last intention...but since I have never been a true believer of any particular faith that results in a brick wall when trying to justify pro-choice or pro-life in religious terms on my end. It's tough in the 14 year old molested kid's case because while you want to be sympathetic to life, you also don't want to cause suffering as well.

24 Osama: Yeah, a lot of people think religion is just about faith and not reason. I disagree, which is why intellectually-honest philosophers state that one indeed can prove the existence of God, and subsequently, the the true faith He founded. But one must want the truth. Many people say they do but really don't. They are content to live in a haze of complacency. Even as a Prot, C.S. Lewis has some interesting things to say in "Mere Christianity."

25 I've never assumed that your opinions are based on just faith and no reason...I assure you that. Proving the existence of God is one thing, but in my mind I've pretty much deemed it impossible to prove which religion is right. Trust me, I'm not content with the "haze" and always seek truth. I've just always felt that religion was a way for people to try and explain the unexplainable. I've also think that in the past 200 years, science has illuminated our minds to many more truths than religion. I'm not content with just science though...like I said, I am open to all discussions and views. I do not conclude anything as an absolute being that I'm only in my early 30's.

26 Osamabeenwritin': "I've never assumed that your opinions are based on just faith and no reason...I assure you that." I didn't mean to imply that you did. As far as established religions, we are material beings who live in a material world (hope I don't sound like Madonna here). Because we are not completely spiritual beings, we need concrete, material things to guide us. The Second Person of the Trinity materialized to found a New Covenant (as predicted in the OT), where founded a religious body with a visible head and promised to be with it until the end of time. Even Prots with an axe to grind against Catholicism admit believe this and admit it's the R.C. Church. The Bible says seek and you shall find. If we honestly want the truth and search, it will be revealed to us. Guaranteed, Steve!

27 Hahaha...you know what's really funny? My name isn't Steve or Steven Baber. I just used that name when I was introduced to this blog by Collin. Dammit...I can't get that Madonna song out of my head now. What have you done! A peaceful discussion has spiraled into the murky depths of 80's pop! I forgive you. I'll seek as well...no worries there.

28 Osama: I didn't really think your real name was Steve. The Madonna song? That's nothing! For real torture, what about the THEME TO "WHAT'S HAPPENING?"!!!!