A Look At Sarah Palin

[ILOVEJESUS]

Lily wrote

The issue is not and never has been my belief or "the path of righteousness". Only those who insist that these matters cannot be talked about like any other subject-- American history, rock formation, soy bean cultivation, or the newly retooled Camaro, think that way. So discussing whether Abraham was a historical character or not, which in most intelligent venues would be considered an interesting subject to some subset of listeners, counts as proselytizing in certain minds here. The major arguments are caused by my refusal to accept the unwillingness of these people to face up to the obvious fact that religion is a fact of human history and nobody is buying the drivel that they and their maximum leader, Ditchens, are selling. A stubborn refusal to accept so much deliberate ignorance drives me.

If these people ever minded their manners for 24 hours and demonstrated some small sign of having heard and learned something in a given discussion, I would be out of here for good within 25 hours. My work would be done!

So you are like a , what? Religious Mary Poppins? I don't think that whether or not abraham existed is relevant as the argument is was he the Abraham that is revered in religion. Might I add that I havent once heard a unanimous bibliography on any bible character including the leading players. Obviously religion is part of human history. Who says that it isn't? Remember though that Thor , Zeus et all are also part of our history, culture, as is superman and the tree Gods of the tribes in the rain forests. The argument that all those who "believe" hate is the one accusing them of needing a critch ( not the panty kind), and this i believe is what people like you find annoying, as its truth leaves you feeling a bit pointless, and really not very special. Wheras harping on about sky Gods that you have never met, seen or have any other relationship with other than a belief or feeling can be twisted into various tales and soundbites that make you feel superior over those "non believers" who fail to share in your wonderland. You're going to become even more unpopular than me on here if you carry on lol.

[Mog]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

You're going to become even more unpopular than me on here if you carry on lol.

She's already more unpopular than you.

[Sternwallow]

Philboid Studge wrote

Lily's panty stains regarding 'Death to Grandma' has been traced to a single editorial in Investors Business Daily. Every wingnut blog and rightwing talking point flowed from it, and we have already shown how the IBD (willfully) misread the provision in the health care proposal.

But I did enjoy this bit:


Yeah, if Stephen Hawking were British, he would have been dead a long time ago. Oh wait ...

Terrific catch. A real chuckle-nugget. Thanks Philb.

[Sternwallow]

A. Stupid Cow wrote

The issue is not and never has been my belief or "the path of righteousness". Only those who insist that these matters cannot be talked about like any other subject-- American history, rock formation, soy bean cultivation, or the newly retooled Camaro, think that way. So discussing whether Abraham was a historical character or not, which in most intelligent venues would be considered an interesting subject to some subset of listeners, counts as proselytizing in certain minds here. The major arguments are caused by my refusal to accept the unwillingness of these people to face up to the obvious fact that religion is a fact of human history and nobody is buying the drivel that they and their maximum leader, Ditchens, are selling. A stubborn refusal to accept so much deliberate ignorance drives me.

If these people ever minded their manners for 24 hours and demonstrated some small sign of having heard and learned something in a given discussion, I would be out of here for good within 25 hours. My work would be done!

Well, it is clear that Richard Dawkins has gotten way under the leathery hide of our Bovina. It is odd that she would object to him; he is the gentlest of the "New Atheist Trio". He must be doing something very right. I would pay good money to read a substantial analysis of Bovina by Christopher Hitchens.

It is too high a price to be polite here on our Raving forum just to watch Bovina renege for the thousand and first time on her promise to go away. But then, simple Christian decorum should have extracted her from these rough precincts long ago.

Stupid cow.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

Got a flash for you, sweetie. HR 3200 makes buying private insurance after the bill is passed illegal. You might want to look at p. 16. Not that you will be able to understand what you are reading. You can't understand a simple English sentence. How are you going to follow legal gobbledy-gook?

Got a flash for you, sweetie. Investor's Business Daily completely misrepresented HR 3200 (again), and you parroted it, because it fits your agenda. It's almost like they're (and you're) dishonest.

Now that I've had a chance to look into it a little further (and I think Philboid already eviscerated you on this point anyway), but here is the analysis by www.factcheck.org.

What is humorous is that the very part that you highlighted on page 16 of the bill, which you claim makes private insurance illegal, also appears to actually do what you claim is one of the fixes, namely, being able to shop among a multitude of different plans (whether it includes competition across state lines, I'm not sure).

FactCheck.org wrote

It’s nonsense to say that private insurance will be outlawed, but it will be regulated. In fact, the bill envisions a wide variety of private policies being offered to the public through a new national health insurance exchange resembling the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, which makes 269 different private plans in total available to federal workers, including members of Congress.

[Irreligious]

The New York Times today has a nice analysis on the origins of the lie that the national health care bill contains provisions for government-sponsored death panels.

It should be no surprise that one of the main perpetrators of this lie is none other than the duty-shirking, ex-governor of Alaska and all-around nitwit Sarah Palin:

The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the “death panel” phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

This also was interesting:

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition.”

So, the subtext for all of this is that the black man-- whose father hailed from some remote place halfway around the world and who made his son a Muslim by birthright-- has a not-so-secret aim to create a Fourth Reich right here in these United States. White people, their disabled progeny and their enfeebled parents will be his first victims.

It's an ingenious exploitation of some people's latent and not-so-latent prejudices and a textbook demonstration of how to get people to fight against their own self-interests.

[nkb]

The New York Times are a bunch of commies, why would we listen to them?

I'm curious: How the fuck did the Washington Times tie in the Nazi eugenics program into the newly elected president. That is some feat!

[Choobus]

Right wing nutjobs consider The Nazis to be their Kevin Bacon; they can get hitler involved with anything if they try had enough.

[Kate]

Heh heh heh.

The New York Times today has a nice analysis on the origins of the lie that the national health care bill contains provisions for government-sponsored death panels.

That's good, considering it's not in the "health care bill" - it's in the "Stimulus" Bill, section 9201.

Palin was right, as always.

Granny Lives

Well, the senate bill has dropped the death panels but, of course, they will sneak it in through the HR bill or an amendment. They have to. Health care will have to be rationed-- there is no way around it. Who is not going to get a liver transplant? The 25 year old or the 60 year old? If you aren't smart enough to figure it out on your own, read the medical "ethicists" advising Hussein.

[nkb]

seminarian wrote

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1&hp"]

That's good, considering it's not in the "health care bill" - it's in the "Stimulus" Bill, section 9201.

Yes, it is (it's in both).

[Kate]

[nkb]

Lily wrote

Palin was right, as always.

Palin was right, because some equally retarded senators have agreed with her?

Lily wrote

Well, the senate bill has dropped the death panels but, of course, they will sneak it in through the HR bill or an amendment.

There is no such thing as a "death panel". Will you, please, in the interest of not looking like a right-wing cretin, stop parroting such an obvious fear tactic?

Lily wrote

Health care will have to be rationed-- there is no way around it. Who is not going to get a liver transplant? The 25 year old or the 60 year old?

Now you're demonstrating how ignorant you are about organ transplants.

Lily wrote

If you aren't smart enough to figure it out on your own, read the medical "ethicists" advising Hussein.

Well, give us a link. How am I supposed to guess which ethicists you're talking about?

nkb wrote

Palin was right, because some equally retarded senators have agreed with her?

There is no such thing as a "death panel". Will you, please, in the interest of not looking like a right-wing cretin, stop parroting such an obvious fear tactic?

We call a spade a spade, baby. If there are 4 people needing transplants and only 3 organs available, a decision will have to be made on some basis. Nobody has to know squat about organ transplants. One only needs to be able to add and subtract.

Try this. If there are only 3 beds available and 5 people who are equally in need of one, on what basis will patients be selected?

You need to smarten up real fast. I shouldn't have to tell you who Bammy's advisors are. They are in the news every day-- of course, you have to actually read those who know and will tell you the truth. Not the NYT, MSNBC et al.