So instead of condoms, she would prefer an even greater populace that can't be fed, housed, and clothed. Oh, wait, that's right - they won't be using condoms so they'll all die of AIDS.

This is the neocon version of population homeostasis.

Idealism sometimes gets crushed under the brutal juggernaut of reality. Those who fail to change their views are mocked by the rest of us.

/or they create policy and the world suffers

Diogenes

No, they're supposed to not have sex unless they're married, and then only for the purpose of procreation.

Yikes.

Married sex with AIDS isn't much different than unmarried sex with AIDS.

she supports wife-beating if the wife had an abortion

Michael Corleone approves.

" HLI describes itself as a "pro-life, pro-family, pro-woman organization" that claims as its mission to "fight the evils of abortion, contraception, sex education and family breakdown."

Yes, because nothing like getting married because your girl got preggers strengthens those families...

Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

let me explain this to you:

if i dont vote for a bill saying kidnapping of children between the ages of 4 and 5 is illegal, its not because i advocate kidnapping children between the ages of 4 and 5. its more because i realize that kidnapping of *all* children is illegal, and thus this is a useless law that doesn't do anything.

If a viable child is born through an abortion, it is already illegal to kill them. Which means that you don't need *another* law just to state what is already illegal.

Two years ago I developed HPV-related oral cancer. I didn't contract it through a cock in my mouth, the oncologist was confident I contracted it when I was a toddler putting my hands in my mouth.

She told me HPV, like Mono, is a sexually transmitted disease because it CAN be transmitted that way, not because it always is. Many can be transmitted other ways.

So if Ms. Stanek wants to shoot her mouth off about how us HPV sufferers should focus on the immoral behaviors that caused it, she'll be in for a disappointment with many of our tales.

This woman is a complete loon.

Marcus Aurelius: Diogenes

No, they're supposed to not have sex unless they're married, and then only for the purpose of procreation.

Yikes.

Well, then. I guess we should start informing the rape gangs.

/not that they'd probably interested in condoms, either

BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

Attempted humor?
Or actual stupidity?

...we may never know.

raanne: BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

let me explain this to you:

if i dont vote for a bill saying kidnapping of children between the ages of 4 and 5 is illegal, its not because i advocate kidnapping children between the ages of 4 and 5. its more because i realize that kidnapping of *all* children is illegal, and thus this is a useless law that doesn't do anything.

If a viable child is born through an abortion, it is already illegal to kill them. Which means that you don't need *another* law just to state what is already illegal.

That's an interesting argument. But it's not the one he made on the floor when he opposed it. Rather, he argued against the bill on its own merit:

"As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved." Source

Or, in other words: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

And when the comparable bill hit the Senate, Obama opposed it-even when uberliberals like Ted Kennedy wouldn't. It's inexcusable. And I don't say that as a pro-lifer, either. I think abortion should be legal. And, i

In truth, I don't suspect Obama really wanted to oppose it. What he DID want, however, was a perfect voting record with groups like NARAL and NOW, to be used in support of his future career. It was nothing more than a calculated, insincere move to fortify his base, and one he never anticipated having to answer for in front of a national audience...

Politics of change, indeed.

I...I don't even have anything to say.

/posted anyway

I feel genuinely sorry for this woman's family. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to live with such a thoroughly despicable human being.

palladiate: This woman is a complete loon.

She is a dangerous loon, because she has a well funded organization behind her giving her access to a bullhorn.

BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

Satan_Sunburn used this line of argument far better in the other thread.

Of course, he was roundly laughed at and the flaws in the argument were clearly pointed out.

Mayhaps you could just go read that thread and catch up on why you sound like an idiot.

And, I must say, you guys are on top of the talking points.

I've seen nearly the exact same talking point attack from 4 different people over the course of the past 2 hours.

I've also seen 3 different people post a picture of Obama either not holding his hand over his heart for the Anthem or standing in front of a random campaign sign with the comment "just for fun".

Do you guys get a google alert every morning so you know what to post on Fark?

bulldg4life: And, I must say, you guys are on top of the talking points.

I've seen nearly the exact same talking point attack from 4 different people over the course of the past 2 hours.

I've also seen 3 different people post a picture of Obama either not holding his hand over his heart for the Anthem or standing in front of a random campaign sign with the comment "just for fun".

Do you guys get a google alert every morning so you know what to post on Fark?

Hey, they're Independents who are just concerned with how uninformed folks are. It's a service...

BravadoGT: Or, in other words: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

In other words, it's better to trust the doctor's opinion because he is more able to make that judgment.

cameroncrazy1984: BravadoGT: Or, in other words: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

In other words, it's better to trust the doctor's opinion because he is more able to make that judgment.

Than another doctor giving a second opinion in the face of a possibly botched procedure?

palladiate: I didn't contract it through a cock in my mouth,

So, what did you get for a cock in your mouth?

/"Two cookies and a glass of milk"

Theaetetus: So, what did you get for a cock in your mouth?

Fifty bucks, same as in town.

/thank you. try the veal

I beat my wife in hopes that it will cause an abortion.

bulldg4life: Do you guys get a google alert every morning so you know what to post on Fark?

Their mugwump whispers it to them.

50mm: Idealism sometimes gets crushed under the brutal juggernaut of reality.

Reality has a well known liberal biased.

Darconix: /Media Matters is no more objective than Fox News

Yeah, it's totally biased and unfair the way they quote people's exact words. And they way they include actual audio and video? How much more unfair can you get?

BravadoGT: Or, in other words: "Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion."

And when the comparable bill hit the Senate, Obama opposed it-even when uberliberals like Ted Kennedy wouldn't. It's inexcusable. And I don't say that as a pro-lifer, either. I think abortion should be legal. And, i

In truth, I don't suspect Obama really wanted to oppose it. What he DID want, however, was a perfect voting record with groups like NARAL and NOW, to be used in support of his future career. It was nothing more than a calculated, insincere move to fortify his base, and one he never anticipated having to answer for in front of a national audience...

Politics of change, indeed.

Wow. Do you think there is some value in not passing silly redundant laws that are only being put forward as the leading edge of a wedge?

BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

WTF? I seem to recall taking you somewhat seriously in the past.

Darconix: Media Matters attacking a right-wing talking head? That's like the constant drama between O'Reilly and Olbermann.

/Media Matters is no more objective than Fox News

What part of the MM piece is dishonest?

Wait... isn't there still another abortion flamewar going on?

Lionel Mandrake: Darconix: /Media Matters is no more objective than Fox News

Yeah, it's totally biased and unfair the way they quote people's exact words. And they way they include actual audio and video? How much more unfair can you get?

THIS. I've seen some stuff on there where they post so much of the actual video and/or audio that I find myself disagreeing with the conclusion they've reached about it.

Compare to how carefully trimmed and chosen quotes are on a show like O'Reilly's so they don't contradict what he's saying.

Subby doesn't know the difference between bias and dedicated slant.

BravadoGT: Hmmm...her wackiness does seem to excuse Obama's votes for infanticide...

With the understanding that challenging a neocon to explain their logic is a lot like getting involved in a land war in Asia, how can anyone actually believe this? I hate Bush just as much as you probably hate Obama, but even I don't think he literally enjoys seeing Americans die.

So: Are you seriously arguing that Obama is in favor of killing small children? Difficulty: Don't bring abortion into it, because that's not what the vote you're referring to was about.

This is the woman (Jill Stanek) who claimed the hospital, she worked for as a nurse, used some sort of empty linen closet to hold aborted babies who survived the procedure. She claimed that she routinely was told to put babies in this room and leave them to die. (How often do you figure that a fetus COULD actually survive an abortion procedure?) She publicly charged the hospital and turned them into the Governor's office (a conservative, anti-abortion, Republican governor at the time) who turned the investigation over to the state's Department of Health Services (the regulatory agency for hospitals.)

The investigation found absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support Stanek's claims and every single staff member at the hospital testified that no such events ever happened and that there was no empty closet that could have been used for such purposes. However, there was a designated room at the hospital for the parents of still-born children and those babies born with such severe deformaties that they could not survive outside the womb and the parents chose not to pursue medical treatment when there was no hope. (In other words, a private place were grieving parents could spend some time with their dead or dying babies, who were "wanted.")

When you've got one person telling some outrageous story and you've got dozens of others saying she's lying, what is the reasonable conclusion? Especially when Stankek could not produce a single shred of credible evidence to back her claims.

Look at all the other looney crap she's involved in and then try telling me that you think she's anything other than a crazed attention whore who would do and say anything to prevent abortions. (Including slandering anyone who might be the least bit "pro-choice.")

BTW, the hospital fired her ass as soon as the investigation was terminated and her charges were found to be unsubstantiated.

This is really news? Really?? Is this the best MM can do?

Nestea Plunge: GoldSpider: This is really news? Really?? Is this the best MM can do?

Hannity had her on, talk to him, Media Matters just reports it.

Hannity has a lot of kooks on. Does Media Matters cry every time he has Ann Coulter on?

Darconix: Hmm. A political group that admits it only reviews what it considers "right-wing" media that selectively edits its soundbytes to come to a conclusion. It's still partisan hackery. I've heard it claimed that the left-wing loves nuance. So if I took only half of those nuanced positions, rolled them up into soundbytes, and presented it as fact, all the while admitting I'm only doing this to discredit left-wing platforms, would you consider that "fair and balanced?"

It is as dishonest as Fox News. I admit I watch Fox News, but at least I'm willing to admit its bias.


Help me out with your logic here...

According to you, Media Matters admits to being left wing, and acts accordingly. This is bad.

Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced" but you know them to have a right-wing bias. This is ok.

How is it that you hold the group who (by your own admission) lies about who they are and what they stand for in higher regard than the group that's up front about their bias?

People with views like this Stanek woman freak the hell out of me. I'm a woman. I like kids. I think they are important. I am not some rabid pro-lifer.

Seriously, if Stanek takes her views to their fullest extent (and it really sounds like she does), then she needs to espouse the exact opinions put forth in this little piece of satire (one of the few readable articles I've ever found on Slate.com):
http://www.slate.com/id/2196784/

KOS links 2-3 times a day, and now Media Matters. Did George Soros dump some money into Fark's beer fund?

Just remember kids, as soon as you finish having sex, watch your mouth...there's a third person in the room now.

CagedDepravity:
According to you, Media Matters admits to being left wing, and acts accordingly. This is bad.

I would state it differently. Media Matters concluded long ago that there is pervasive conservative bias in the media. They then set out to find evidence to support this hypothesis and selectively posted such evidence on the Web. This is, in fact, bad. This is not how smart and reasonable people test their hypotheses.

Nestea Plunge: Why don't you go there and peruse the site for yourself instead of unquestionably obeying what your masters say, all the time?

What, is it racist or some other kind of hateful to point out silly complaints like this?

Nestea Plunge: degreeless: KOS links 2-3 times a day, and now Media Matters. Did George Soros dump some money into Fark's beer fund?

Awwww, poor baby gonna go cry?

50mm: Married sex with AIDS isn't much different than unmarried sex with AIDS.

For the disease to enter a closed system like that, I'm pretty sure the sex has to be at least partially unmarried. Unless they allow polygamy for both sexes in whatever region we're talking about.

In an April 9, 2007, posts to her website and the Illinois Review blog, Stanek wrote: "The following, if true, is what abortion and the dehumanization of preborn babies has wrought. It is the most despicable outcome of abortion I have ever seen or reported. Yet, if one is 'pro-choice' and denies that preborn humans are human, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. It can't even be considered cannibalism." She then cited a March 29, 2007, Epoch Times article, which reported: "The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, reported that infant corpses and fetuses have become the newest supplements for health and beauty in China. Not only is the placenta considered a beauty remedy, but also aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies. In Guangdong, gourmet body parts are in high demand and can even be purchased through hospitals..."

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

Why is anyone taking this coont seriously?

BravadoGT:
In truth, I don't suspect Obama really wanted to oppose it. What he DID want, however, was a perfect voting record with groups like NARAL and NOW, to be used in support of his future career. It was nothing more than a calculated, insincere move to fortify his base, and one he never anticipated having to answer for in front of a national audience...


-For someone who claims to be "pro choice", you sure seem to know an assload about every Abortion bill that Obama ever voted on. While I'm usually all for people being informed, the fact that this seems to be an obsession for you puts your motives (and claims of being 'pro choice') in serious doubt. That's my nice way of calling you a lying sack of crap, BTW.

-I wish you Obama bashers could get your stories straight. When he voted for FISA, you guys were all "OMG! HE VOTED HIS CONSCIENCE INSTEAD OF PANDERING TO HIS BASE!" But now on this issue, you're screeching "OMG, HE DID THIS JUST TO KEEP A PERFECT VOTING RECORD!!!11eleventy".

Seriously, maybe you can explain something to me. If you're so "pro choice", what the hell do you care that Obama voted on the pro choice side of this particular bill? Hmmmmm?

Wow. That's hardcore.

Condoms can destroy your civilization, but they won't kill you.