Monday, March 30, 2009
My first thought upon watching this was that the Slickster was merely making a rhetorical blunder, but then he kept on making the assertion. Could he have meant the difference between those embryos destined for implantation and those not, or is he really this stupid? If it was the former, he's still dealing with the destruction of people unable to defend themselves against arrogant assholes who condescendingly stand on superiority based on size. We here in fly-by country call them "bullies", and these are the most heinous, barbaric, monsterous, and really, the most pathetic kind.
But if Billy-boy is really that stupid, then what does it make those people who elected him a second time? Answer: Obama supporters. Sorry. Trick question.
But really, I thought we on the right were the ones devoid of scientific sophistication. Obviously, on issues such as abortion, ESTR, homosexuality, anthropogenic global warming, we are constantly reminded how just who the buffoons are. (And that's just science!)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Here's another, apparently delivered shortly before the one above:
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Ideology is not something that should take second place to science. Science without limits is what Nazis believed in. It is a sad commentary on our society if we were to allow science to progress without the guidance of our ideologies and morals. And hell, our society is a pretty sorry lot as it is. It appears more and more as if we no longer need to use embryonic stem cells to get the biggest bang for our funding buck. So what guides Barry to rescind the ban put in place by his predecessor? It can only be a scheme to support his abortion position, by further dehumanizing those people unfortunate enough to have been conceived, but not yet born.
When we review Barry's position on life, be it the abortion issue, the stem cell issue or how cost will determine who gets treatments should his health care proposals go as planned, it's a real insult to our intelligence when this punk speaks of "his faith". I don't buy it. He's a worm.
UPDATE: Here's another article saying much the same thing. Yeah. We conservative Christians are anti-science. Sure.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The above is from a site I plan to add to my "Places Of Interest" list called, Priests For Life. They're really big on showing what abortions look like. I like the idea. Viewing images of abortions, or simply an ultra-sound of one's own child should be a requirement before agreeing to an abortion. Hey, if it's only tissue, it shouldn't be a big deal. Nothing got people more stoked about Nazi atrocities like seeing film and photos of the horrors of the death camps. Anyone who believes abortion should be as legal as Barry intends to make it should visit the site and take a look around. Prove you really support it by providing yourself a clear understanding of what it is you support.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
But again, I'm speaking only politically here, and that's been bad enough for some. Some of our left-leaning visitors have defended Barry against charges of socialism or communism, though mostly because Barry states he isn't one of 'em. We on the right have taken a more "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck" attitude. So, to that end, I present these two articles about the Duck in Chief. The first is from the wonderful Selwyn Duke who also takes legitimate shots at lefty journalists who should have seen this guy coming. The other is from a recent Randall Hoven article.
For me, anything left of center is merely a matter of degrees, all shades of the same beast, right until fascism. It's just a matter of how far the lefty in charge wants to take it, how how far he is allowed to go by the rest of us. But no matter what the left wants to call him, and no matter what Barry calls himself, it's damn clear he's a Duck.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I am looking to reprint a great response to a misguided high school teacher which speaks to some of this garbage. There is no way that the homosex agenda can co-exist with the already Constitutionally acknowledged right of religious expression. The more the sinful practice of homosexual behavior is codified into our laws, the more conflict will result as Bible-believing Christians WILL be further marginalized in favor of the imaginary rights of 2% of the population.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Let's think about this for a moment: If the military has a problem with the war, wouldn't they be cheering more loudly for the guy who thinks he's gonna end it? If the military had a problem with Bush, wouldn't they cheer more loudly for the guy who replaced him? I got it! Maybe the soldiers to whom Bush was talking were those stupid ones of which John Kerry spoke!
Hat tip: Thomas Lifson at AmericanThinker.com
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Of course, the author is making predictions. His remarks are entirely speculative. But he does draw on a variety of sources to get to his conclusions. And those of us with eyes to see have understood the points he is making. The question would be how to get the opposition to understand such obvious points.
Consider that there is a growing segment of our society that has never even seen the inside of a church, much less have a belief in God. Whether or not that segment is evidence of what the author above is saying, or if it is a separate but equally troublesome phenomena is less a concern than how the two fit together to bring about what can't be less than an entirely undesirable future for our nation.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Even more to the point, articles like these show our liberal friends that we do not, in fact, have any problem whatsoever with science. We are not anti-science in any way. Far closer to the truth, is that we have a better understanding of the rightful place of science in our decision making process. To focus even more sharply, we are not intimidated by the word "science", as if it's use negates common sense, ethics or morality.
The scientific community is not without its politics. In fact, politics looms large within it. It is also held to religious standards by those who have no religion, and even by some who claim to be religious.
But none of this is news. We who truly pay attention know that science vacilates between one set of beliefs and another, always trying to refine it's position in order to get closer to the truth. As we are battered between rackets of "not good for you" across the net to "not bad for you", we are made dizzier by the topspin of each side convinced of their position. All the more reason to hold up and take a closer look when the alarmists scream that the end is near. All the more reason to NOT act until we have a clearer picture of reality.
As the article reminds us, our economy is way too messed up to further encumber it on the basis of mythical threats. All global warming related measures should be stricken from any spending packages immediately.