They can come for your kids too

[InfinityGoddess]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192028595-4uPV2Ad9P/bVdU6S4csEfA


There have been moments when the fight between Congressional Democrats and President Bush over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program seemed to devolve into a shouting match about who loves children more.

So when Democrats enlisted 12-year-old Graeme Frost, who along with a younger sister relied on the program for treatment of severe brain injuries suffered in a car crash, to give the response to Mr. Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29, Republican opponents quickly accused them of exploiting the boy to score political points.


Then, they wasted little time in going after him to score their own.
In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.


But what on the surface appears to be yet another partisan feud, all the nastier because a child is at the center of it, actually cuts to the most substantive debate around S-chip. Democrats say it is crucially needed to help the working poor — Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) already helps the impoverished — but many Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.


The feud also illustrates what can happen when politicians showcase real people to make a point, a popular but often perilous technique. And in this case, the discourse has been anything but polite.


And it gets worse, too...much worse (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/):

A poster at the Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts) propagated information alleging that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government. Among other bits of information, the post by the Freeper “icwhatudo (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907687/posts)” asserts that Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost “nearly $40,000 per year for tuition” and live in a well-off home.

The smear attack against Graeme has taken firm hold in the right-wing blogosphere. The National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDAzYjY5OWVkMmQxZTJmNTZlNDNjZTlhOGU3NjNlZDA=), Michelle Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graeme-frost-and-the-perils-of-democrat-poster-child-abuse/), Wizbang (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/10/07/the-not-so-poor-voice-of-schip.php), Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/10/018686.php), and the Weekly Standard blog (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/daily_blog_buzz_1.asp) have all launched assaults on the Frost family. The story is slowly working its way into traditional (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/dems-poster-chi.html) media (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/09/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3346221.shtml) outlets as well.

Here are the facts that the right-wing distorted in order to attack young Graeme:

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.
2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.
3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.
4) Last year, the Frosts made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.
5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.


There is no level these people will not sink to.

[Sheryl Nantus]

a 12 year old on the radio?

you Americans will do anything to get ratings, eh?

[tourdeforce]

Where does this Graeme Frost kid stand on abortion and gay marriage?

[InfinityGoddess]

a 12 year old on the radio?

you Americans will do anything to get ratings, eh?

Um, the government radio programs aren't there for "ratings". They're there so that the President and the political parties can lay out their agendas. The Dems propped up this boy, a classic case of why SCHIP is necessary, and the right-wing bloggers started on him and trying to make the kid and his family look bad.

It's like, Goddess forbid that you try to present a good argument to make your case without having the other side coming after you like a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

[Sheryl Nantus]

The Dems propped up this boy...

it's sad when either side has to display children to make their case.

I'd say in this case both sides are filled with idiots. Children shouldn't be pulled into political brawls. Children should be in the playgrounds, enjoying their childhood and not being displayed as trophies for politicians using them for their own gains. In six months no one will care about this kid meanwhile he's been used and abused for the sake of politics.

I call foul on both sides.

Silly Americans.

;)

[InfinityGoddess]

it's sad when either side has to display children to make their case.

I'd say in this case both sides are filled with idiots. Children shouldn't be pulled into political brawls. Children should be in the playgrounds, enjoying their childhood and not being displayed as trophies for politicians using them for their own gains. In six months no one will care about this kid meanwhile he's been used and abused for the sake of politics.



The kid and his family were asked first, so it's not like the Dems just shoved him on their radio address and said, "Here, you need to make our case for SCHIP". The family wanted to speak out for SCHIP. On the other points you make, you're right. Kids should not be put into the middle of political brawls like this.

However, I think my point is that people shouldn't behave like bullies when other people disagree with them, period.

[Monkey]

I hate stepping foot into the politics forum. I *know* better, dern it!!!

The same people demanding billions dollars for war say that spending money on the poor has gotten out of hand. Medicare, CHIP, Social Security...all these programs together could be funded for MUCH less than the war, but the powers that be want to cut and slash at *them* in order to look "fiscally responsible".

The thing is, a lot of people like to think of those on Medicare or Chip as "freeloaders"...yeah, they could pay for their own medical care, but they are just "living on the government dime". That is simply not true. To illustrate that point, the democrats used a solid example. The point was to show an individual case that highlighted the issue, but it was something more, as well. It was to show America the human face of needy children.

Think of an action movie...lots of people getting shot all over the place, and it's not such a big deal...but someone that the audience has gotten involved with gets injured, and OH NO, big dramatic scene. Think of oh, what was that movie? The one with the Emotion Police and the Gun Katas? People get offed left and right...but the puppy? NOOOOO! It's sort of like that. The democrats were hoping that people who think, "Sure, get them off the government hand-outs and let them fend for themselves" would look at this one little boy and their hearts would go out...and they'd rethink kicking *him* - and therefore the others like him - out of the program.

It wasn't the best idea, but it was hardly unheard of, and I think the motivation was good. Those bloggers on the other hand...

[SC Harrison]

The family wanted to speak out for SCHIP.

And I can't blame them. Both of their children now have preexisting conditions. If they could even get health insurance for their kids, it would probably cost around $1,300 -$1,500 per month (if they're lucky), which would soon put them out of their house or (and?) put them so deep in debt the whole family would soon qualify for government assistance, not just the kids.

[William Haskins]

Where does this Graeme Frost kid stand on abortion and gay marriage?

the dem speech writers haven't told him yet.

[benbradley]

...
There is no level these people will not sink to.
I hesitate to be ho-hum on this or any issue , SCHIP is an important issue to many (funds Peach Care in Georgia - a friend's children are in it, it paid to fix his daughter's broken arm, and he's been politically active in trying to keep it funded). However...

Is this "sinking to such a low level" really that surprising?

Remember this definition of politics?

Poly: Many
Ticks: Blood-sucking insects

Ben, honorary president, Cynics-R-Us.

[Sheryl Nantus]

However, I think my point is that people shouldn't behave like bullies when other people disagree with them, period.

wait... you see how people act on this board and you're surprised that your politicians act the same way?

:ROFL:

I've seen enough of American politics to know that there are plenty of bullies on each side, bottom and top. The Republicans shouldn't be going after this kid but the Democrats shouldn't have paraded him up on the platform no matter what the family wanted. You make someone a target and sure 'nuff, someone's going to take a potshot. Heck, look at all the shots taken at all the Presidential kids on both sides.

American politics have just become nastier over the past decade or so. Sad, because people are used to looking at the US and thinking their politicians were a cut above the rest.

now it's everyone in the mud and roll.

:(

[InfinityGoddess]

.

Is this "sinking to such a low level" really that surprising?

Remember this definition of politics?

Poly: Many
Ticks: Blood-sucking insects

Ben, honorary president, Cynics-R-Us.

:ROFL:@ the "polyticks" definition.

Seriously, though. It's one thing for the parties to criticize each other in a heated debate. It's another to send toadies out to stalk or harass the opposition.

[InfinityGoddess]

wait... you see how people act on this board and you're surprised that your politicians act the same way?

Actually, I'm not.

I've seen enough of American politics to know that there are plenty of bullies on each side, bottom and top. The Republicans shouldn't be going after this kid but the Democrats shouldn't have paraded him up on the platform no matter what the family wanted.

I don't recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign against anyone. Criticized people, yes, but sending the "troops" out to find snippets of people's private lives, sending hate mail, and stalking them? No.

You make someone a target and sure 'nuff, someone's going to take a potshot. Heck, look at all the shots taken at all the Presidential kids on both sides.

"Potshots" and "bullying" are two different things.

American politics have just become nastier over the past decade or so. Sad, because people are used to looking at the US and thinking their politicians were a cut above the rest.

We Americans have Karl Rove to thank for that. And Kenneth Starr.

[plnelson]

It's like, Goddess forbid that you try to present a good argument to make your case without having the other side coming after you like a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

and someone else added . . . it's sad when either side has to display children to make their case.

I'd say in this case both sides are filled with idiots.

That's where you are wrong.

They are not idiots. They are responding intelligently and rationally to the rules of the game that the American voters have set up for them.

Years ago we got a new cat. He was cute and adorable and used to jump up on our laps when we were sitting on chairs. We enjoyed this, and if our chairs were at the dining room table he would often get rewarded with a food scrap. Stupid us! Soon he made a pest of himself at the table, always jumping up on us while we tried to eat. And as he grew up he remained cute and adorable, but he also grew into a 20 lb cat (he was a Maine Coon).

Was he a stupid cat? Was he a bad cat? No - he was simply responding to how we shaped his behavior with our rewards.

Politicians engage in this staged, histrionic, or melodramatic media circus, and they also do all the mudslinging and dirt digging because it works. Far from being stupid, it's a sign of intelligent life in Washington.

It's the same reason why candidates have to knock themselves out to raise millions of dollars and start the campaign season 20 months before the election - the reason why it costs so much money to run an election campaign is because politicians know they they have to have huge, expensive ad blitzes because that's what voters respond to.

Most politicians really would rather be talking about the issues or performing their official duties rather than fund-raising and @$$-kissing, but the voters have decreed otherwise.

I don't watch TV. I do subscribe to two newspapers - the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, plus I read The Economist. I know my US history, the Constitution, the voting records of the candidates, the major items in the federal budget, and basic geography. I consider all of this part of my patriotic duty as a US citizen. This makes me different from the vast majority of voters, and it also makes me immune to expensive ad campaigns, and political circus.

Democracies get the politicians they deserve. Whenever we point a finger at someone we have three fingers pointing back at ourselves.

[InfinityGoddess]

. . .

That's where you are wrong.

They are not idiots. They are responding intelligently and rationally to the rules of the game that the American voters have set up for them.



Harassment and stalking are not following the rules of the game. I don't know of anyone personally who thinks that's a good thing.

[plnelson]

We Americans have Karl Rove to thank for that.

Sorry, but Karl Rove and James Carville and other high profile political stategists suggested the strategies they did because they work.

It's like playing the "race card" in certain elections. Is it the race card itself which is wrong, or is it the underlying racism which makes the race card effective that we should really be concerned about? I've seen elections here in New England involving nonwhites where the race card never got played. Why? Because it wouldn't have worked, and more likely, would have backfired. Also here in New England we have gay congressmen where challengers have tried to play the "gay card" and it did backfire, much to the credit of the voters.

[jodiodi]

Harassment and stalking are not following the rules of the game. I don't know of anyone personally who thinks that's a good thing.

They may not be 'good things', but they're old tactics. People have been flinging mud and poo at each other and attacking each opponent's weaknesses since the first stirrings of civilization. They drag out every piece of dirty laundry they can find to make the other person (or group) look bad. The only reason it seems like degeneration from some false 'high road' is that we now have more means to discover it.

[InfinityGoddess]

Sorry, but Karl Rove and James Carville and other high profile political stategists suggested the strategies they did because they work.



James Carville's strategy works?! This is the same man who poo-pooed Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and then when it actually worked, he called for Dean to resign as head of the DNC. The hell, man?

Karl Rove's strategy was for a permanent Republican majority. After people saw how corrupted the party was, they booted a whole bunch of them from office in 2006. Yeah, that worked out really swell.

They may not be 'good things', but they're old tactics.

Name me one other instance in American history where people thought it was okay to stalk and harass people who disagreed with them and then not arrest the blatant lawbreakers for trespassing.

[William Haskins]

you do realize that there does exist history prior to your (obviously quite recent) political awakening, right?

karl rove is not an anomaly in any sense.

and carville was an extraordinarily gifted political strategist.

both come from long (and i mean long) traditions of hardball american politics...

[InfinityGoddess]

you do realize that there does exist history prior to your (obviously quite recent) political awakening, right?



Yes, I realize that. But this isn't about "hardball political tactics". This is about blatant bullying on the part of a group of right-wing bloggers and media personalities like Michelle Malkin against a kid and his family just because they spoke up for SCHIP. They went beyond the pale by sneaking around the family's house and going into school records and such. Oh, and sending them hate mail.

It's one thing to have criticized the family, or heck, the Democrats who let the kid onto their radio address, but to harass them in that way borders way into illegal territory here.

Of course, this isn't a new tactic to harass and stalk dissenters. Anti-abortion activists do it all the time with abortion clinics and their workers and patients.

[jst5150]

Name me one other instance in American history where people thought it was okay to stalk and harass people who disagreed with them and then not arrest the blatant lawbreakers for trespassing.

Anytime from the end of the Civil War until the end of the civil rights movement.

Any period of time dealing with native Americans.

Now -- any American Muslim will verify.

The McCarthy Era.

[InfinityGoddess]

Anytime from the end of the Civil War until the end of the civil rights movement.

Any period of time dealing with native Americans.

Now -- any American Muslim will verify.

The McCarthy Era.

Can you back those up?

[plnelson]

James Carville's strategy works?!

Yes - he was the guy who ran the "it's the economy, stupid " Clinton campaign.

This is the same man who poo-pooed Howard Dean's 50-state strategy and then when it actually worked, he called for Dean to resign as head of the DNC. The hell, man?

Like Rove, he lost his touch, but my point was that strategies should be jusdged by what they tell us about the voters, not the strategists.

Karl Rove's strategy was for a permanent Republican majority. After people saw how corrupted the party was, they booted a whole bunch of them from office in 2006. Yeah, that worked out really swell.

But that supports my point: Ultimately, it comes down to the voters.

The OP was complaining that the children's health initiative was hijacked by political circus. So I said that when this happens it reflects the values of the voters.

Name me one other instance in American history where people thought it was okay to stalk and harass people who disagreed with them and then not arrest the blatant lawbreakers for trespassing.
If their lawbreaking was that blatant the victims could have successfully pressed charges. But political harassment is as old as US history.

[jst5150]

Can you back those up?
You want statutes and case law? Arrest records? The litany of Discovery channel/PBS documentaries? Personal testimonies? I'm not sure this forum will is the appropriate venue to retry 150 or so years of indiscretions, but if you're willing to start the court, I'm willing to lawyer up. The body of evidence would plead overwhelmingly in the favor of the examples.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

I don't recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign against anyone. Criticized people, yes, but sending the "troops" out to find snippets of people's private lives, sending hate mail, and stalking them? No.

You may not recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign... but this is politics. These people, no matter the party affiliation, are human. Believe me, if there's power, money, winning and losing involved, everyone smears when they get the opportunity. They lie, cheat, steal - whatever it takes to get what they want. Public life, private life... you name it. It happens.

[tourdeforce]

I think this kid has a future in Democratic politics.

Future class president, at least.

Lucky for him that a good blowjob scandal is actually a plus in the world of high school politics (as long as he is not the one giving it).

[InfinityGoddess]

But that supports my point: Ultimately, it comes down to the voters.

The OP was complaining that the children's health initiative was hijacked by political circus. So I said that when this happens it reflects the values of the voters.


Sorry, but no voter in their right mind would think it's okay to stalk and harass a kid and his family just because they spoke out against the Shrub's veto of SCHIP. Plus, I was talking about bloggers, not Karl Rove or James Carville and the "dirtiness" of politics. Yes, there are political aspects to it, but the bottom line is that these right-wing bloggers stooped to the lowest levels of the swamp and no one I know of will think that what Malkin and her goonbots did was anything but slimy and despicable.

You may not recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign... but this is politics. These people, no matter the party affiliation, are human. Believe me, if there's power, money, winning and losing involved, everyone smears when they get the opportunity. They lie, cheat, steal - whatever it takes to get what they want. Public life, private life... you name it. It happens.

The "it's politics" angle is a tired old excuse. There should be no excuse for this kind of behavior.

Furthermore, it seems that the difference between "criticism" and "smearing" have been muddied a bit.

[jst5150]

The "it's politics" angle is a tired old excuse. There should be no excuse for this kind of behavior.
True, but people in power desire to stay in power or acquire more of it. Politics is merely the means by which they do it.

So much for my "tear off the date calendar" philosophy spurt.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

We weren't talking about excuses. We were talking about whether or not it happens. No, there's no excuse. But it happens. Period. Democrats and Republicans and Independents, ad nauseum.

[InfinityGoddess]

We weren't talking about excuses. We were talking about whether or not it happens. No, there's no excuse. But it happens. Period. Democrats and Republicans and Independents, ad nauseum.

Name me one Democrat and/or Independent-leaning blogger who has stooped to this kind of thing, and you'll get a cookie.

[kristie911]

We weren't talking about excuses. We were talking about whether or not it happens. No, there's no excuse. But it happens. Period. Democrats and Republicans and Independents, ad nauseum.

*GASP* You would dare to imply the Democrats are not perfect?! That, they too, would engage in political games that might not be totally legit! *DOUBLE GASP*


:roll:

[sassandgroove]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10memo.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192028595-4uPV2Ad9P/bVdU6S4csEfA




And it gets worse, too...much worse (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/):



There is no level these people will not sink to.WAIT! Hold the phone. Aren't you the person who said a fetus is a parasite? Why do you even care?

[InfinityGoddess]

*GASP* You would dare to imply the Democrats are not perfect?! That, they too, would engage in political games that might not be totally legit! *DOUBLE GASP*


Nobody's saying that anyone is perfect. I certainly have my fair share of frustrations with the Dems (hence why I've refused to change my voting reg over to them). I'm talking about tactics here, most particularly of media personalities.

WAIT! Hold the phone. Aren't you the person who said a fetus is a parasite? Why do you even care?

Fetuses and born children aren't the same thing. Furthermore, while I have no desire to reproduce (much less adopt), that doesn't mean I don't care about the children.

[jodiodi]

Name me one Democrat and/or Independent-leaning blogger who has stooped to this kind of thing, and you'll get a cookie.

Wow. People actually read those kinds of blogs? I'm always suspicious of anyone with any kind of political agenda. Hence, I believe everything that spews forth from their mouths, pens, noses, butts or whatever is tainted with the stench of propaganda. Honesty and integrity have no place in politics because the pursuit of power is too seductive and people will stoop to pretty much anything to get it.

[jst5150]

Name me one Democrat and/or Independent-leaning blogger who has stooped to this kind of thing, and you'll get a cookie.
So, the argument now shifts to, "If one must do it, then the other must, too"? That's a logical fallacy and, really naive thinking in motion. And I'm not sure you're going to find anyone with that sort of depth of political knowledge here off-handedly. The point, I think, is that the two-party system uses every means, morsel and opportunity to keep and hold power. Because no one could name the raft of people who are agents of change for either side is not indicative of the thing not happening. Quite the contrary.

The issue is as it's always been: people who can make the change -- the voters -- are usually to tired and too broken by media innudation to do much about it.

[InfinityGoddess]

Wow. People actually read those kinds of blogs? I'm always suspicious of anyone with any kind of political agenda. Hence, I believe everything that spews forth from their mouths, pens, noses, butts or whatever is tainted with the stench of propaganda. Honesty and integrity have no place in politics because the pursuit of power is too seductive and people will stoop to pretty much anything to get it.

I read DailyKos, Think Progress, Eschaton, Pandagon, and occasionally Liberal Oasis, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars. They don't generally have any kind of "agenda", so to speak, nor do they claim affiliation with the parties (although DailyKos and its partners do prop up progressive politicians and raise money for them through ActBlue).

Furthermore, your attitude, while to some extent understandable, is extremely cynical. There are honest politicians out there; they're just rare finds these days.

So, the argument now shifts to, "If one must do it, then the other must, too"? That's a logical fallacy and, really naive thinking in motion.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. Other posters were with the "eh, they all do it" attitude.

[kristie911]

There are honest politicians out there; they're just rare finds these days.

And they're always Democrats.

[InfinityGoddess]

And they're always Democrats.

Not always. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is an Independent. :)

[Jean Marie]

Fetuses and born children aren't the same thing. Furthermore, while I have no desire to reproduce (much less adopt), that doesn't mean I don't care about the children.
Well no, but you can't have one w/o the other. Just sayin'.

[Jean Marie]

Not always. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is an Independent. :)
He's a socialist.

[ColoradoGuy]

So are we gonna nudge this into an abortion thread? Haven't had one of those in a while.

[Jean Marie]

So are we gonna nudge this into an abortion thread? Haven't had one of those in a while.
Naw, I was only making a biological point, Chris :)

[InfinityGoddess]

Well no, but you can't have one w/o the other. Just sayin'.

True, but fetuses cannot survive outside the womb. Born children can. Regardless, it still doesn't mean I don't care about kids just because I don't want any of my own.

He's a socialist.

That has nothing to do with him being an honest politician.

[Tiger]

Name me one Democrat and/or Independent-leaning blogger who has stooped to this kind of thing, and you'll get a cookie.

Do you believe that the concepts of right and wrong; good and bad, are indicative of political party affiliation?

[Jean Marie]

True, but fetuses cannot survive outside the womb. Born children can. Regardless, it still doesn't mean I don't care about kids just because I don't want any of my own.



That has nothing to do with him being an honest politician.
False.

Fetuses can survive outside the womb. Depending how far along they are.

In your opinion, BS is an honest politician.

It's kinda funny that that those are his initials.

[InfinityGoddess]

Do you believe that the concepts of right and wrong; good and bad, are indicative of political party affiliation?

No. But I also think that what people use as tactics to quiet criticism depends on certain individuals and parties.

False.

Fetuses can survive outside the womb. Depending how far along they are.

I believe the threshold is about 24-26 weeks.

In your opinion, BS is an honest politician.

It's kinda funny that that those are his initials.

All you have to do is look at the man's voting record and his commitment to the people of Vermont (http://sanders.senate.gov/). He's got nothing dirty on him.

[tourdeforce]

Children should not be considered viable until they have a job and a drivers license.

[Tiger]

No. But I also think that what people use as tactics to quiet criticism depends on certain individuals and parties.

Okay.

I know a dyed in the wool Mac user who once looked me in the eye and, very seriously, said: "Macs don't have crashes, but every once in a while they have 'unexpected errors.'"

:)

[Tiger]

Children should not be considered viable until they have a job and a drivers license.

Oh crap. So, I'm not even viable yet!

[InfinityGoddess]

Okay.

I know a dyed in the wool Mac user who once looked me in the eye and, very seriously, said: "Macs don't have crashes, but every once in a while they have 'unexpected errors.'"

:)

I'm still waiting on examples of progressive bloggers "smearing" anyone like Malkin has. So far, no one's pointed me out to any. :P

And, speaking as someone who has to use Macs at school, they do crash...oh but they do crash. >.<

[Tiger]

Michelle Malkin doesn't represent me, or anyone that I know. In anyway. In any dimension.

[InfinityGoddess]

Michelle Malkin doesn't represent me, or anyone that I know. In anyway. In any dimension.

Never said she did.

[tourdeforce]

I am almost positive that I have seen Michelle Malkin in a few pornos.

[Tiger]

Never said she did.

Not me, specifically, but if she's not an example of someone, why bring her up at all? I'm a member of the party you're taking such liberties at defining thus far--the same party, you seem to assign to Malkin.

[Tiger]

I am almost positive that I have seen Michelle Malkin in a few pornos.

I suppose that after a few thousand such movies, they all start to resemble each other...?

[InfinityGoddess]

Not me, specifically, but if she's not an example of someone, why bring her up at all? I'm a member of the party you're taking such liberties at defining thus far--the same party, you seem to assign to Malkin.

She is an example of what the modern GOP has become. It doesn't mean that individuals are like that; it means that's what the party has turned into. I've stopped voting for them ever since the Shrub and his goonie Karl Rove came to office for that very reason.

If you want more of a perspective, here's a blog post from a guy who's going to register Independent because of this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827).

ETA: Btw, I found your rep comment to be very amusing. :D

[Tiger]

She is an example of what the modern GOP has become. It doesn't mean that individuals are like that; it means that's what the party has turned into. I've stopped voting for them ever since the Shrub and his goonie Karl Rove came to office for that very reason.

If you want more of a perspective, here's a blog post from a guy who's going to register Independent because of this (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827).

Do you understand what's showing on the obverse of your statement, "it doesn't mean that individuals are like that?" Michelle Malkin is an individual, yet you're using her as an example of what the party's become? Your specifics and your generalizations seem somewhat interchangeable.

You're make good arguments, but--with everything in this thread so easily viewable--you might consider not trying to change the meanings of things after the fact.

[InfinityGoddess]

Do you understand what's showing on the obverse of your statement, "it doesn't mean that individuals are like that?" Michelle Malkin is an individual, yet you're using her as an example of what the party's become? Your specifics and your generalizations seem somewhat interchangeable.

You're make good arguments, but--with everything in this thread so easily viewable--you might consider not trying to change the meanings of things after the fact.

It's not just Michele Malkin, though. It's the entire right-wing blogosphere, plus Limbaugh that are smearing this poor kid and his family. A majority of these guys vote Republican.

Furthermore, there are indications (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/dems-poster-chi.html) that Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky might have had a hand in this:

Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts.

[Pat~]

I'm still waiting on examples of progressive bloggers "smearing" anyone like Malkin has. So far, no one's pointed me out to any. :P


And that proves...?

[InfinityGoddess]

And that proves...?

Apparently that people either a) don't touch the left blogosphere or b) they don't have any evidence that the progressives resort to this kind of behavior.

I do know for a fact, however, that DailyKos has a policy that prohibits posting personal information about the opposition. That is all.

[Pat~]

Apparently that people either a) don't touch the left blogosphere or b) they don't have any evidence that the progressives resort to this kind of behavior.

I do know for a fact, however, that DailyKos has a policy that prohibits posting personal information about the opposition. That is all.

"Apparently" kinda takes the punch out of your proof.

[kristie911]

And that proves...?

That some people spend way too much time reading blogs...

and it ain't us.

[InfinityGoddess]

"Apparently" kinda takes the punch out of your proof.

Perhaps, but I haven't heard anything yet. ;) I'm still open for an answer.

That some people spend way too much time reading blogs...

and it ain't us.

Blogs have their uses. I have one myself, but it's mostly for posting site updates. Makes it much more efficient than updating my html pages once a week.

I read blogs like Kos and Think Progress because I don't get much as much info from Big Media. Makes it easier for me to sift through the news.

[Pat~]

Whether or not you get an answer will not support the point you are trying to make.

1) If someone rises to the challenge, it will negate your claims.
2) If no one comes up with said blog-smear, your point will still be only based on assumption.

[InfinityGoddess]

Whether or not you get an answer will not support the point you are trying to make.

1) If someone rises to the challenge, it will negate your claims.
2) If no one comes up with said blog-smear, your point will still be only based on assumption.


Actually, I said I was waiting on it because people kept saying that these kinds of smears "happens on both sides". I'm waiting for them to prove their point on that.

[Pat~]

Actually, I said I was waiting on it because people kept saying that these kinds of smears "happens on both sides". I'm waiting for them to prove their point on that.

Yes, but yours was the original contention that it doesn't. You are the one that bears the burden of proof.

[William Haskins]

I do know for a fact, however, that DailyKos has a policy that prohibits posting personal information about the opposition. That is all.

this the same daily kos whose mike stark went to o'reilly's house?

[InfinityGoddess]

this the same daily kos whose mike stark went to o'reilly's house?

And the DailyKos community for the most part called him out for that.

Yes, but yours was the original contention that it doesn't. You are the one that bears the burden of proof.

My original comment was asking people to name me one Democratic/Independent blogger who engages in this sort of thing. So, the reality is that it's not on me. It's on anyone who can put forth the information.

[William Haskins]

but he's a liberal. and he did it. and, by your own admission, most of the also-liberal community condemned it.

so what you're saying is - when you make these grand pronouncements that no liberals do such things, you're really just full of shit and hoping no one knows enough to call you on it.

that about right?

[InfinityGoddess]

but he's a liberal. and he did it. and, by your own admission, most of the also-liberal community condemned it.

so what you're saying is - when you make these grand pronouncements that no liberals do such things, you're really just full of shit and hoping no one knows enough to call you on it.

that about right?

No, I'm saying that I want proof that progressive bloggers do this with impunity. That's not to say that they don't ever do stupid things. As a matter of fact, they do. What Stark did, however, is nothing compared to what Malkin & Co. is doing to this kid right now. Bill O'Reilly is a public figure, open to scrutiny. The boy in this case is not.

Of course, I don't agree with what Stark did, either, all I'm saying is that if he were one of Malkin's toadies, he would be embraced. But the fact that he got slammed for his bs by the progressive blogosphere (and Keith Olbermann nailed him too) says a lot, right there.

[William Haskins]

my eyes are old and tired. please point out the word impunity in the quote below. thanks.

I'm still waiting on examples of progressive bloggers "smearing" anyone like Malkin has. So far, no one's pointed me out to any.

[Pat~]

I don't recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign against anyone. Criticized people, yes, but sending the "troops" out to find snippets of people's private lives, sending hate mail, and stalking them? No.


Name me one Democrat and/or Independent-leaning blogger who has stooped to this kind of thing, and you'll get a cookie.


My original comment was asking people to name me one Democratic/Independent blogger who engages in this sort of thing. So, the reality is that it's not on me. It's on anyone who can put forth the information.

I've quoted your statements chronologically. Your original contention was that this was a one-sided affair. You bear the burden of proof.

[William Haskins]

of course it is. IG is so crooked in her thinking and back pedaling that she has to screw her pants on in the morning.

[InfinityGoddess]

my eyes are old and tired. please point out the word impunity in the quote below. thanks.

"Like Malkin has" translates to "impunity". As in, she pulls this kind of thing with very little accountability for her actions.

[William Haskins]

no... "like malkin has" translates into methods, not consequences.

you should perhaps remember that you're among writers here.

[InfinityGoddess]

I've quoted your statements chronologically. Your original contention was that this was a one-sided affair. You bear the burden of proof.

I already did with my articles and links. I'm still waiting on people who can say that "both sides do it equally and the same".

no... "like malkin has" translates into methods, not consequences.



It translates to both. I'm still waiting to hear of any progressive blogger who resorts to attacking children and their families and bullying them into silence. Or bullying anyone else, for that matter.

[Pat~]

I already did with my articles and links. I'm still waiting on people who can say that "both sides do it equally and the same".


Your articles and links supported the idea that one side did it; they did not prove that another never does.

[William Haskins]

It translates to both. I'm still waiting to hear of any progressive blogger who resorts to attacking children and their families and bullying them into silence.


they don't. one could argue that they're morally superior. one could also argue that repubs don't trot out children to do their dirty work for them.

regardless... nice moving of the goalposts.

[InfinityGoddess]

Your articles and links supported the idea that one side did it; they did not prove that another never does.

Have you ever taken a logic course?

That's the thing, though. I never found anything of that nature, other than Kos putting up diary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/123529/74) saying that he doesn't allow that sort of thing on his site.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

How many times have we been around this Mulberry bush now?

[William Haskins]

http://images.allrecipes.com/site/allrecipes/area/community/userphoto/small/2573.jpg
.

[Pat~]

The teacher in me keeps hoping for a break-through. :)

[Pat~]

That's the thing, though. I never found anything of that nature, other than Kos putting up diary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/10/123529/74)saying that he doesn't allow that sort of thing on his site.

And again I'll say, your not finding anything doesn't prove one thing.

[InfinityGoddess]

And again I'll say, your not finding anything doesn't prove one thing.

Which is why I'll be happy for some assistance. :p It's a big internet.

[Pat~]

Which is why I'll be happy for some assistance. :p It's a big internet.

Yes, it is. But don't expect us to do the work to support your claims. ;)

[InfinityGoddess]

Yes, it is. But don't expect us to do the work to support your claims. ;)

I don't expect you to do all the work, but I am trying to write a research proposal at the same time, so my time is rather limited. I'm already Googling for articles to use for the said proposal. And the rough draft is due tomorrow, so yeah...

[William Haskins]

lol!

http://www.eatock.com/files/gimgs/242_rolodex.jpg

[Monkey]

Geesh.

Can we just agree that a smear campaign against a little kid isn't really a good thing to do? Was there NO other way for those against adding the funds to CHIP to counter his argument?

I'm not saying that all republicans/all democrats are any particular way. Smearing is not the sole domain of the Republicans. I WILL say that smearing your opponent is a sign of weakness and a logical fallacy. There's a tactic called "poisoning the well"...basically, when you can't win an argument, you just try to make the other side look bad.

[Pat~]

I don't expect you to do all the work, but I am trying to write a research proposal at the same time, so my time is rather limited. I'm already Googling for articles to use for the said proposal. And the rough draft is due tomorrow, so yeah...

Yeah, well I've got better things to do with my time, too. I think I'll go regalvanize the trash cans...;)


(Good luck with your proposal.)

[Monkey]

WAIT! Hold the phone. Aren't you the person who said a fetus is a parasite? Why do you even care?

Sass, I have a lot of respect for you, but I don't feel that this was in good taste.

Abortion is not at issue here, and Infinity obviously cares about the issue that *she* brought up. These two things have nothing to do with one another.

[Bird of Prey]

I don't expect you to do all the work, but I am trying to write a research proposal at the same time, so my time is rather limited. I'm already Googling for articles to use for the said proposal. And the rough draft is due tomorrow, so yeah...

By all means, get your work done, IG. You put plenty of time in here. Best on your research proposal.

[InfinityGoddess]

Abortion is not at issue here, and Infinity obviously cares about the issue that *she* brought up. These two things have nothing to do with one another.

Oh, but didn't you know? Any woman like me who wishes to remain childfree automatically means that I don't care about kids. Or at least I shouldn't be caring. :p

Which is bunk. Just because I don't want kids of my own, doesn't mean I don't get upset when they get abused like this.

[jst5150]

Which is why I'll be happy for some assistance. :p It's a big internet.
And you're a student at Rutgers. There are any number of us who'd beg to have chops that strong to be admitted to a uni like that. So, you have to believe our expectations of you would be that you'll see your way through this one just fine. :-)

[jodiodi]

I read DailyKos, Think Progress, Eschaton, Pandagon, and occasionally Liberal Oasis, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars. They don't generally have any kind of "agenda", so to speak, nor do they claim affiliation with the parties (although DailyKos and its partners do prop up progressive politicians and raise money for them through ActBlue).

Furthermore, your attitude, while to some extent understandable, is extremely cynical. There are honest politicians out there; they're just rare finds these days.

Yes, my attitude toward politics, politicians, politicos--pretty much anyone in that sphere is quite cynical. When I go to vote, I choose the least of all the available evils. I don't care what party anyone represents, I don't trust any of them. Everyone in politics has an ulterior motive that will benefit them or their 'friends'. They pontificate on 'what's best for the people' when not a one of them have any clue what it's like to be an ordinary citizen of this country. They don't worry about their 401K going down the tubes, or if their kids will ever be able to afford o go to a good college. They don't have to decide between name brand and house brand items in the grocery store. They don't have to put off getting their car repaired because they can't take the time off from work to take it in or can't afford it because of all the other expenses of daily life.

No, I don't trust those people to decide what's right for me and for the people who have to worry about all those things I listed and more. Any good the government might do for the average citizen is done purely by accident as a side effect of something that's going to give the politicians and their cronies a heck of a lot more.

If I ever find a truly good person in politics, I'll be ecstatic to say I'm wrong. Otherwise, my opinion remains just that: my opinion.

I do, however, agree with you about being demonized because I never wanted to have children. I have stepkids because I happened to fall in love with their father, but I never wanted to birth any. Yet people seem to think I'm less of a woman because I don't want to have kids.

[robeiae]

Geesh.

Can we just agree that a smear campaign against a little kid isn't really a good thing to do?
Sure, but can we also agree trotting out "victims" to make political hay also isn't a good thing to do?

And sometimes, it comes back to bite you in the @ss, as it did for Gore/Winifred Skinner, and Clinton/Jennifer Bush.

[Monkey]

Oh, but didn't you know? Any woman like me who wishes to remain childfree automatically means that I don't care about kids. Or at least I shouldn't be caring. :p
Actually, I think that it sometimes takes more love of children to realize that you *shouldn't* have them.


Which is bunk. Just because I don't want kids of my own, doesn't mean I don't get upset when they get abused like this.

The logic used seems to be that anyone who supports abortions doesn't care about kids, because fetuses can become children. It would follow that they also don't care about adults, because children become adults. It's basically saying that if you believe in abortion, then you care nothing for anyone, and that simply is not true.

Even if it were true, however, it has no place in this discussion.

[Monkey]

Sure, but can we also agree trotting out "victims" to make political hay also isn't a good thing to do?


Yes, it is sensationalist to make an emotional appeal. Both political parties use emotional appeal, and human interest, to sway voters because, often, the voters won't listen to much else.

But in this case, the kid wasn't a victim. He is *benefiting* from CHIP. He *wanted* to stand up for the program that is keeping his family afloat, and the democrats wanted people to see the human side of what CHIP does. They didn't do anything untoward or unusual in letting this child serve as a visible, emotional, example.

I believe that it was possible to counter the argument made in ways that did not involve trying to dig up non-existent dirt on this child and his family.

[Monkey]

Can someone give me a good spanking for stepping in here?

I long for the nice, sweet tolerance of the TIO board.

:D

[William Haskins]

here. have some fetus chewing gum.

it's chock full of aborty goodness.

[robeiae]

But in this case, the kid wasn't a victim. He is *benefiting* from CHIP. He *wanted* to stand up for the program that is keeping his family afloat, and the democrats wanted people to see the human side of what CHIP does. They didn't do anything untoward or unusual in letting this child serve as a visible, emotional, example.

I believe that it was possible to counter the argument made in ways that did not involve trying to dig up non-existent dirt on this child and his family.I can do that:

The kid benefits from SCHIP as it is now. Bush vetoed SCHIP because it was being expanded beyond what it covers now, having said he is in favor of maintaining it. Therefore, the kid's story is pointless, with respect to the bill passed by the Dems. Q.E.D.

So, what point were the Dems actually trying to make? And how was it not untoward?

[Monkey]

Chip doesn't cover all the children who need it now, and the population is ever-expanding. The Democrats could have chosen to showcase a child who is NOT recieving needed coverage, but then the really would be parading out a victim. As it is, they chose to show how CHIP benefits those children that it does cover. That's not untoward, and there *is* a point in it.

[Monkey]

I'm not really sure there is a point in my staying in this discussion, though.

Obviously, I can't win hearts and minds here, and I've said my piece.

*shrug*

[William Haskins]

I'm not really sure there is a point in my staying in this discussion, though.

Obviously, I can't win hears and minds here, and I've said my piece.

*shrug*

you won my hears.

[poetinahat]

Anytime from the end of the Civil War until the end of the civil rights movement.

Any period of time dealing with native Americans.

Now -- any American Muslim will verify.

The McCarthy Era.
Don't forget internment camps.

[Bird of Prey]

I'm not really sure there is a point in my staying in this discussion, though.

Obviously, I can't win hears and minds here, and I've said my piece.

*shrug*


You won me and I was on the fence. So there you have it.

Shrug back.

[Monkey]

Aw, darn it, Haskins! I just fixed that! You were too darn quick for me.



But I'm glad I won your hears.
:)

[robeiae]

Chip doesn't cover all the children who need it now, and the population is ever-expanding.So you and the Dems say. How is this need determined? My understanding is that the program would have been expanded to include coverage for "children" up to twenty six years old and for households making more than $80,000 a year. Seems like just a brick in the socialized healthcare road to me.

Regardless, you said:

But in this case, the kid wasn't a victim. He is *benefiting* from CHIP. He *wanted* to stand up for the program that is keeping his family afloat, and the democrats wanted people to see the human side of what CHIP does.

Again, Bush didn't veto the entire program--he vetoed the bill that would expand it--unnecessarily in his opinion (and mine). He has openly stated he is in favor of keeping SCHIP and even increasing the funding. The kid was used to appeal to emotion and avoid a conversation on the actual facts.

[ColoradoGuy]

Here (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/10/957) is a very good link reviewing the whole program.

[Jean Marie]

The teacher in me keeps hoping for a break-through. :)
There is always that. Hope, I mean.

Yes, it is. But don't expect us to do the work to support your claims. ;)
I concur.

Don't forget internment camps.
Nasty business, that.

Freaks me out that it wasn't taught in high schools in CA. And that was one of the states that had the damned things. At least it wasn't when I was in school...and it was not that long ago, for the smart ass who's gonna comment.

[kristie911]

...and it was not that long ago, for the smart ass who's gonna comment.

:Ssh:


;)

[InfinityGoddess]

Great. Now CNN is in on this (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/11/cnn-blame-dems-graeme/):

This morning, CNN aired its first report on the right-wing smear campaign (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/08/attacking-graeme-frost/) against 12-year old SCHIP recipient Graeme Frost. CNN pinned the blame on Democrats for assault on the Frost family.

CNN’s John Roberts reported: “Some of the accusations [against the Frosts] may be exaggerated or false. But did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?” A CNN political analyst then placed the blame squarely on the Democrats’ shoulders:
I think in this instance what happened was the Democrats didn’t do as much of a vetting as they could have done on this young man, his situation, his family. […]


More and more, Congress is acting less like a deliberative legislative body, and more like a political campaign. We’ve been seeing the politicization of every aspect of government.


Yeah, I think this substantiates my point that Big Media = not all that liberal.

[Dawno]

I read DailyKos, Think Progress, Eschaton, Pandagon, and occasionally Liberal Oasis, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars. They don't generally have any kind of "agenda", so to speak, nor do they claim affiliation with the parties (although DailyKos and its partners do prop up progressive politicians and raise money for them through ActBlue).<snipped>

I'm sorry - your imprecise use of the word "agenda" has me spinning here. Of course all the owners of those blogs/sites have agendas. Why on earth would they bother with the cost and effort of keeping those sites going if they didn't?

I read Pandagon and Firedoglake on occasion myself and it's obvious they have an agenda - they spend a lot of time commenting upon items and issues from a liberal perspective, and that's their agenda, to get out their perspective.

Just look at the last few days of posts* and the agendas of these sites is clear. I'm not objecting to it, but it's very naive to suggest they don't have one (actually several).

* here's a quote from a Pandagon post - if the loaded language doesn't show their agenda, I'm not sure what does.

On October 19-21 in Washington, D.C. a real motley crew of the far-right will gather at the Hilton Washington to wring their hands and attempt to bolster the sagging hypocritical movement.


The Values Voters Summit/Washington Briefing 2007 is sponsored by the heavy hitters — Family Research Council, Focus on the Anus Family Action, failed presidential candidate Gary Bauer's American Values, Harry Jackson's High Impact Leadership Coalition and the Alliance Defense Fund.
Here's a clip from Firedoglake on the topic of this thread. No agenda?

Is There No Decency Left in the Republican Party?

By Scarecrow on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:00 am


The American people have many reasons to be repulsed by the Republican Party and their deeply unpopular President. This gang of thugs abandoned every principle they ever professed and instead became the party of corruption, dishonesty, incompetence, coddling the privileged and systematically neglecting the nation’s needs, while debasing the nation’s honor with torture, kidnappings, warrantless spying, aggressive war and unparalleled lawlessness. It is a record unequalled in our history.
And the Democrats aren't innocent - an Annenberg Foundation report last November (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/when_democrats_attack.html) (that was just the quickest thing I got off of Google, I don't have time to do more right now) found:

At times DCCC ads run completely off the rails of factual accuracy. One falsely implies that an Illinois candidate tried to ban Dr. Seuss books from schools. Another correctly states that an Ohio candidate was investigated "for abusing her position," but fails to mention that the investigation found "no substance" to the allegation. Others claim Republicans voted to "raid the Social Security trust fund," a bit of misleading nonsense we've noted previously.

[InfinityGoddess]

I'm sorry - your imprecise use of the word "agenda" has me spinning here. Of course all the owners of those blogs/sites have agendas. Why on earth would they bother with the cost and effort of keeping those sites going if they didn't?

They have those sites to discuss issues they deem important to them. In the case of Pandagon, they're a feminist blog site. So naturally issues of gender, race, sexual orientation, and the like are important to them and they use their blog as a podium to speak on issues sometimes Big Media ignores. This isn't an "agenda" to ask for equality, is it? Firedoglake and DailyKos both work to elect more progressive politicians to office so that people have a voice and not the corporate lobbyists so much. Think Progress is the blog of the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank (I believe the only one, but I could be wrong...most think tanks are right-wing in nature).

* here's a quote from a Pandagon post - if the loaded language doesn't show their agenda, I'm not sure what does.

"Loaded language" does not equal "agenda".


And the Democrats aren't innocent - an Annenberg Foundation report last November (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/when_democrats_attack.html) (that was just the quickest thing I got off of Google, I don't have time to do more right now) found:

At times DCCC ads run completely off the rails of factual accuracy. One falsely implies that an Illinois candidate tried to ban Dr. Seuss books from schools. Another correctly states that an Ohio candidate was investigated "for abusing her position," but fails to mention that the investigation found "no substance" to the allegation. Others claim Republicans voted to "raid the Social Security trust fund," a bit of misleading nonsense we've noted previously

I didn't say that they were. I only mean in terms of stooping to the level of Michelle Malkin and Co., by actually snooping around on private property with the intent to harass and intimidate a 12-year-old disabled boy and his family just because they spoke up about an issue they disagree with the President on. No Democrat or progressive that I know of sink to that level of inhumanity.

[Dawno]

Well, I give up. You have re-defined the term agenda far beyond my ability to understand it.

[Jean Marie]

Well, I give up. You have re-defined the term agenda far beyond my ability to understand it.
No, Dawno, stick by the base definition of agenda and you'll do fine.

[Jean Marie]

Yeah, IG, the Dems and Progressives are perfect...we get that. Above reproach.

BS.

[oswann]

Well, I give up. You have re-defined the term agenda far beyond my ability to understand it.

Thank God. I thought I was the only one not getting it.

Os.

[InfinityGoddess]

Yeah, IG, the Dems and Progressives are perfect...we get that. Above reproach.

BS.

I didn't say that. I said they don't sink to the dirtiest lowest depths of humanity. That doesn't mean that they aren't above reproach.

[Jean Marie]

Thank God. I thought I was the only one not getting it.

Os.
Quitters.

Must be newspeak. New twist. New shit. New bullshit. I'm trying to come up w/ a way to categorize it.

Help me, Rhonda...

[Jean Marie]

I didn't say that. I said they don't sink to the dirtiest lowest depths of humanity. That doesn't mean that they aren't above reproach.
Implication.

You always imply that the Dems are better.

Which begs the question; when are you gonna register w/ them?

P.S. Each side has their faults. No one is perfect.

[Roger J Carlson]

They have those sites to discuss issues they deem important to them. In the case of Pandagon, they're a feminist blog site. So naturally issues of gender, race, sexual orientation, and the like are important to them and they use their blog as a podium to speak on issues sometimes Big Media ignores. This isn't an "agenda" to ask for equality, is it? Firedoglake and DailyKos both work to elect more progressive politicians to office so that people have a voice and not the corporate lobbyists so much.Agenda (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda)

A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: -- Dictionary.com Unabridged

A list or program of things to be done or considered: --The American Heritage® Dictionary

"Agenda" is a real word with real definitions. If an organization is working for equality, then equality IS an agendum for them. All of the things bolded above are important things these organizations want done. They are agenda.

Now, having an agenda is not a bad thing. Everybody has one or more. You seem to be placing a negative connotation on the word that doesn't exist. An agenda may be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but having one isn't.

[Jean Marie]

Btw, you're broadstroking, again. Not that that doesn't matter to you, much. But you are.

All Republicans are not horrible people. Because if that statement were true, you'd have to include a large portion of your family in that. The dirtiest depths of humanity and all.

[InfinityGoddess]

Implication.

You always imply that the Dems are better.

Which begs the question; when are you gonna register w/ them?

P.S. Each side has their faults. No one is perfect.

When they start to grow a spine as a party and start acting like real opposition. :P Naturally, I don't think they're perfect. We New Jerseyans hate all our politicians, regardless of party, but like Republicans even less. About the only guy I feel happy about pulling the lever for is Congressman Rush Holt. Lautenberg and Menendez are kinda "eh"...

Btw, you're broadstroking, again. Not that that doesn't matter to you, much. But you are.

All Republicans are not horrible people. Because if that statement were true, you'd have to include a large portion of your family in that. The dirtiest depths of humanity and all.

I never said that they were. This is about a specific bunch of individuals, namely Michelle Malkin and her toadies, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. McConnell all in cahouts to discredit this kid. They just by coincidence, happen to vote Republican (or in McConnell's case, the Republican Minority Leader in the Senate).

[Jean Marie]

Agenda (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda)

A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: -- Dictionary.com Unabridged

A list or program of things to be done or considered: --The American Heritage® Dictionary

"Agenda" is a real word with real definitions. If an organization is working for equality, then equality IS an agendum for them. All of the things bolded above are important things these organizations want done. They are agenda.

Now, having an agenda is not a bad thing. Everybody has one or more. You seem to be placing a negative connotation on the word that doesn't exist. An agenda may be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but having one isn't.
Bless you, Roger.

Oops, did I just use a Dominionist phrase ;) Or, was that basic Christian? So confusing 'round these parts, of late.

[III]

I didn't say that. I said they don't sink to the dirtiest lowest depths of humanity. That doesn't mean that they aren't above reproach.

Yes, it's very binary. All Dems have a neural inhibitor against depravity. Good to know.

[Jean Marie]

When they start to grow a spine as a party and start acting like real opposition. :P Naturally, I don't think they're perfect. We New Jerseyans hate all our politicians, regardless of party, but like Republicans even less. About the only guy I feel happy about pulling the lever for is Congressman Rush Holt. Lautenberg and Menendez are kinda "eh"...
Now, you're a spokesperson for all of New Jersey?

Far out :D

[Jean Marie]

Damn, I meant to say, Groovy. I'm trying to resurrect that word. I really like :)

[InfinityGoddess]

Now, you're a spokesperson for all of New Jersey?

Far out :D

No, that's just the way the wind blows. We are a very blue state, after all.

Yes, it's very binary. All Dems have a neural inhibitor against depravity. Good to know.

Well, unless you count Joe Loserman as a Dem (he still caucuses with them) who doesn't have such a neural inhibitor. Which I don't personally count him as a Dem anyways...

[sassandgroove]

I don't recall Democrats ever going on a smear campaign against anyone.
Honey, no one is guiltless on smear campaigns. In fact, I think some dems have perfected it.

Harassment and stalking are not following the rules of the game. I don't know of anyone personally who thinks that's a good thing.
Who is harrassing and stalking? Again, neither side is guiltless.


Anytime from the end of the Civil War until the end of the civil rights movement.

Any period of time dealing with native Americans.

Now -- any American Muslim will verify.

The McCarthy Era.
Can you back those up? You can’t be serious.

but no voter in their right mind would think it's okay So now you can speak for every voter? Irregardless of the rest of the sentence, I take issue with that. You can speak for yourself. Leave the rest of us out of it.

They don't generally have any kind of "agenda" Honey, there is ALWAYS an agenda.

There are honest politicians out there; An honest politician is one who stays bought when he/she is paid for.


And they're always Democrats.
Not always. Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is an Independent.
You do realize Kristie was being sarcastic, right?
It's not just Michele Malkin, though. It's the entire right-wing blogosphere, plus Limbaugh that are smearing this poor kid and his family. A majority of these guys vote Republican. Actually, I heard Limbaugh on Wed and all he was saying (paraphrasing) is that the kid is currently covered by the system and so there isn’t really a problem. Don’t fix what ain’t broken. (ETA: Rob covered this point better)
Which is why I'll be happy for some assistance. :p It's a big internet. Then why not get off your duff and do some research? Other than the blogs you already agree with, I mean.
I don't expect you to do all the work, but I am trying to write a research proposal at the same time, so my time is rather limited. I'm already Googling for articles to use for the said proposal. And the rough draft is due tomorrow, so yeah... Wah Wah Wah. So because you are busy, we should do your research for you? Why are you posting at all if you have work to do? As though you are the only busy person around here?
Sass, I have a lot of respect for you, but I don't feel that this was in good taste.

Abortion is not at issue here, and Infinity obviously cares about the issue that *she* brought up. These two things have nothing to do with one another. Hey, I don’t think it is respectful, in good taste, or caring to liken a fetus to a parasite. It does have bearing on the thread because it shows an attitude towards children. She may claim that she cares about children, but a statement like that speaks louder to me on IG’s real feelings. And like Jean Marie pointed out, you can’t have one with out the other. So I stand by my post, thanks.
Oh, but didn't you know? Any woman like me who wishes to remain childfree automatically means that I don't care about kids. Or at least I shouldn't be caring. :p

Which is bunk. Just because I don't want kids of my own, doesn't mean I don't get upset when they get abused like this.It doesn’t have anything to do with choosing not to have children. That is fine. I don’t have any. BUt I find it hard to believe you care about "parasites."
The logic used seems to be that anyone who supports abortions doesn't care about kids, because fetuses can become children. It would follow that they also don't care about adults, because children become adults. It's basically saying that if you believe in abortion, then you care nothing for anyone, and that simply is not true. No. Again, IG is the one who likened a fetus to a parasite. How you can’t see the problem with that I don’t know. Like I said before, in the ideal world we wouldn’t have abortion, but the world is not ideal, therefore I think it should be legal, but beyond that I know it is killing a life.
I can do that:

The kid benefits from SCHIP as it is now. Bush vetoed SCHIP because it was being expanded beyond what it covers now, having said he is in favor of maintaining it. Therefore, the kid's story is pointless, with respect to the bill passed by the Dems. Q.E.D.

So, what point were the Dems actually trying to make? And how was it not untoward? Just thought that bore repeating.
They have those sites to discuss issues they deem important to them. Which equals AGENDA.
I never said that they were. This is about a specific bunch of individuals, namely Michelle Malkin and her toadies, Rush Limbaugh and Sen. McConnell all in cahouts to discredit this kid. Do you actually listen to Rush? Becuase I heard him talking about this issue and he never said anything derrogatory about the kid or the family. He was speaking about the Dems who were using the kid for their agenda. And he made the point I quoted from ROB.

[Jean Marie]

No, that's just the way the wind blows. We are a very blue state, after all.

You said all NJ'ers hate all their politicians which is a far cry from it being a blue state.

Again, you're stating your opinion as opposed to being a spokesperson for the state of New Jersey.

Kind of like recreating a definition for agenda. Please refer to the post that Roger put up w/ the definition of agenda from the dictionary.

Tiresome exercise.

[Roger J Carlson]

Which I don't personally count him as a Dem anyways...How could he not be a democrat when he's a registered democrat and campaigns as one? It's hardly honest to say no democrat would stoop to that level if you specifically exclude democrats who would stoop to that level.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

How could he not be a democrat when he's a registered democrat and campaigns as one? It's hardly honest to say no democrat would stoop to that level if you specifically exclude democrats who would stoop to that level.
Roger, you're dealing with what, in my opinion based on several weeks of intensive study, is a person living in a infinitely-malleable bubble of independent reality, only loosely coupled to this world. Might I suggest that you save your cyber-breath?

[InfinityGoddess]

Honey, no one is guiltless on smear campaigns. In fact, I think some dems have perfected it.

Not to the level of this, no.


Who is harrassing and stalking? Again, neither side is guiltless.

Prove it.


An honest politician is one who stays bought when he/she is paid for.

That's not true. Now you're being cynical.

Actually, I heard Limbaugh on Wed and all he was saying (paraphrasing) is that the kid is currently covered by the system and so there isn’t really a problem. Don’t fix what ain’t broken. (ETA: Rob covered this point better)

Limbaugh is wealthy, spoiled fatass who has no clue what the boy's situation is.

Then why not get off your duff and do some research? Other than the blogs you already agree with, I mean.

Wah Wah Wah. So because you are busy, we should do your research for you? Why are you posting at all if you have work to do? As though you are the only busy person around here?

I have a class to go to in 15 minutes. I challenged everyone else to find the info to prove their case that "both sides do it". So far, no one's replied.

Hey, I don’t think it is respectful, in good taste, or caring to liken a fetus to a parasite. It does have bearing on the thread because it shows an attitude towards children.

She may claim that she cares about children, but a statement like that speaks louder to me on IG’s real feelings. And like Jean Marie pointed out, you can’t have one with out the other. So I stand by my post, thanks.
It doesn’t have anything to do with choosing not to have children. That is fine. I don’t have any. BUt I find it hard to believe you care about "parasites."

Just because I consider fetuses to be "parasites" doesn't mean I don't care about the kids that have been born. People's personal choices are fine by me, so long as they don't try to tell me that I should have children just because.

I actually like kids (as long as they're behaved). I just don't want the responsibility because I know I can't handle it. That is all.


Do you actually listen to Rush? Becuase I heard him talking about this issue and he never said anything derrogatory about the kid or the family. He was speaking about the Dems who were using the kid for their agenda. And he made the point I quoted from ROB.

I make it a habit to avoid hate speech whenever possible. Hearing clips of his show off Media Matters or Crooks and Liars, hell even Countdown is bad enough. Can't stomach it.

[InfinityGoddess]

How could he not be a democrat when he's a registered democrat and campaigns as one? It's hardly honest to say no democrat would stoop to that level if you specifically exclude democrats who would stoop to that level.

He's a Democrat In Name Only. That means he undermines them to score for the Republicans. Most other DLCers aren't nearly as bad as he is.

[Jean Marie]

Roger, you're dealing with what, in my opinion based on several weeks of intensive study, is a person living in a infinitely-malleable bubble of independent reality, only loosely coupled to this world. Might I suggest that you save your cyber-breath?
Um, Dr. Duncan, thank you for your wise words. I appreciate your hard work and believe I shall...take your advice, given so freely to Roger, under advisement.

[Roger J Carlson]

He's a Democrat In Name Only. That means he undermines them to score for the Republicans. Most other DLCers aren't nearly as bad as he is.So then you admit that he IS a democrat and he WOULD stoop to that level of inhumanity. Thanks for the clarification.

[Cranky]

He's a Democrat In Name Only. That means he undermines them to score for the Republicans. Most other DLCers aren't nearly as bad as he is.

The DINO label you're applying here is your opinion, IG. That doesn't mean he's not a Democrat.

[InfinityGoddess]

The DINO label you're applying here is your opinion, IG. That doesn't mean he's not a Democrat.

He's a neocon. That much is not an opinion.

[Cranky]

He's a neocon. That much is not an opinion.

You can be both, unless I missed the memo.

[Jean Marie]

The DINO label you're applying here is your opinion, IG. That doesn't mean he's not a Democrat.
No, no, like Roger just said, IG's admitting that Joe is a Dem. Name only or not, he's a Dem. Period.

It's been clarified. End of story, discussion.

We're done here.

[Jean Marie]

Cranky, get out while you can.

Stop!!!

Joe's a Dem.

Run!!!!!

[benbradley]

Agenda (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agenda)

A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: -- Dictionary.com Unabridged

A list or program of things to be done or considered: --The American Heritage® Dictionary

"Agenda" is a real word with real definitions. If an organization is working for equality, then equality IS an agendum for them. All of the things bolded above are important things these organizations want done. They are agenda.

Now, having an agenda is not a bad thing. Everybody has one or more. You seem to be placing a negative connotation on the word that doesn't exist. An agenda may be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but having one isn't.

This word is loaded (meaning it has more than one meaning, and furthermore one meaning is often misunderstood for another), often leading to confusion and unnecesary argument, especially in political discussions.

Agenda in the sense used earlier in this thread more closely means this:
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda> [m-w.com] (and to be fair, I don't see this under any definition at dictionary.com - yet another reason to use more than one source)
There is also "hidden agenda" which according to m-w.com means ulterior motive (in my experience this is often what people mean when they say some person or entity "has an agenda"). And in these meanings, agenda is singular rather than plural or collective (as in the original meaning of "a list of things to be done"), so it should really have been called agendum, but that's not how the usage turned out. "Hidden agendum" would be technically correct, but it sounds silly.

[Dawno]

There are times to try and reach a common understanding and there are times when it's just futile.


Just sayin'...

[InfinityGoddess]

You can be both, unless I missed the memo.

True, but I think that I meant progressives, not hacks like him. And certainly not DINOs.

So then you admit that he IS a democrat and he WOULD stoop to that level of inhumanity. Thanks for the clarification.

He's not a real Democrat. He's an Independent now, who just happens to caucus with the Dems. He likes his cushy chairmanships, because that's how self-serving he is.

[sassandgroove]

Not to the level of this, no.WHy dont' YOU Prove it?

Prove it.Still waiting on you for that one.


That's not true. Now you're being cynical.
yup.


Limbaugh is wealthy, spoiled fatass who has no clue what the boy's situation is.

I make it a habit to avoid hate speech whenever possible. Hearing clips of his show off Media Matters or Crooks and Liars, hell even Countdown is bad enough. Can't stomach it.
Admitting you don't listen to him, you make some rather harsh claims. I try not to speak about on subjects I have no knowledge of. Maybe you should do the same.

I have a class to go to in 15 minutes. I challenged everyone else to find the info to prove their case that "both sides do it". So far, no one's replied.Again, you are not the only busy one here. Pat showed how the burden is on you for proof. Just becuase you have class doesn't make you any more special than anyone here.

Just because I consider fetuses to be "parasites" doesn't mean I don't care about the kids that have been born. People's personal choices are fine by me, so long as they don't try to tell me that I should have children just because.
I actually like kids (as long as they're behaved). I just don't want the responsibility because I know I can't handle it. That is all.
I have never once implied you should have kids 'just becuase' and as I said earlier, I don't have kids either. I actually applaud you for making that decision, it is far better than people having kids 'just because they should' and then later resent them or worse. I am talking about an attitude indicated by comparing a fetus to a parasite, which you continue to dodge.

[benbradley]

Damn, I meant to say, Groovy. I'm trying to resurrect that word. I really like :)

That word is pure '60's, and will never lose its connotation. When Phil Collins' ballad-style remake of "Groovy Kind Of Love" was popular, it was already an anachronism by well over a decade. Collins' version of the song should have been retitled for the times: "Yuppie Kind Of Love."


Ben, folk entomologist etymologist extrordinaire.

[Jean Marie]

There are times to try and reach a common understanding and there are times when it's just futile.


Just sayin'...
I hear you, oh wise one.

[III]

There are times to try and reach a common understanding and there are times when it's just futile.

What a mod-agenda-biased thing to say!

[Roger J Carlson]

This word is loaded (meaning it has more than one meaning, and furthermore one meaning is often misunderstood for another), often leading to confusion and unnecesary argument, especially in political discussions.

Agenda in the sense used earlier in this thread more closely means this:
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda> [m-w.com] (and to be fair, I don't see this under any definition at dictionary.com - yet another reason to use more than one source)
There is also "hidden agenda" which according to m-w.com means ulterior motive (in my experience this is often what people mean when they say some person or entity "has an agenda"). And in these meanings, agenda is singular rather than plural or collective (as in the original meaning of "a list of things to be done"), so it should really have been called agendum, but that's not how the usage turned out. "Hidden agendum" would be technically correct, but it sounds silly.Even with that definition, the groups she mentioned have an agenda. They clearly have an underlying ideological plan or program. To wit: "issues of gender, race, sexual orientation, and the like are important to them". Regardless, it still derives from the original definition of a list of things to be done or goals to accomplish. No one mentioned anything about a "hidden agenda". IG said they didn't have an agenda and Dawno said they clearly did, and they do.

[Jean Marie]

That word is pure '60's, and will never lose its connotation. When Phil Collins' ballad-style remake of "Groovy Kind Of Love" was popular, it was already an anachronism by well over a decade. Collins' version of the song should have been retitled for the times: "Yuppie Kind Of Love."


Ben, folk entomologist etymologist extrordinaire.
I dated myself, huh :) I was still a kid, but I love the sound of it, Ben. You're right about the title of the song...yuppie would have been perfect :D

[benbradley]

He's a Democrat In Name Only. That means he undermines them to score for the Republicans. Most other DLCers aren't nearly as bad as he is.
So he's actually an Agent Provocateur?

[Jean Marie]

What a mod-agenda-biased thing to say!
Naw, that was more of a mod-agenda based thing to say :)

[InfinityGoddess]

WHy dont' YOU Prove it?

Because I can't right now. You need to prove your point that "all sides do it". That burden is not on me.


Admitting you don't listen to him, you make some rather harsh claims. I try not to speak about on subjects I have no knowledge of. Maybe you should do the same.

I know enough of Limbaugh to know that he is a disgusting excuse of a human being. That much is enough for me.


Again, you are not the only busy one here. Pat showed how the burden is on you for proof. Just becuase you have class doesn't make you any more special than anyone here.

The burden of proof that "everyone does it" belongs on everyone else, not me. Proving that my side doesn't do it is on me. That clear, yes?

I have never once implied you should have kids 'just becuase' and as I said earlier, I don't have kids either. I actually applaud you for making that decision, it is far better than people having kids 'just because they should' and then later resent them or worse. I am talking about an attitude indicated by comparing a fetus to a parasite, which you continue to dodge.

I only care about the born. A fetus is at the mercy of its maternal host. I consider it a parasite because I don't want one in me ever. That doesn't mean I don't care about kids.

So he's actually an Agent Provocateur?

Something like that, yes...

[III]

Naw, that was more of a mod-agenda based thing to say :)

Don't correct me you dog-hugger!

[Jean Marie]

Just because you don't want a child, doesn't mean it's a parasite, IG when it's in its fetal state.

[Jean Marie]

Don't correct me you dog-hugger!
Don't you dare call me a treeeoh wait, you can call me a dog hugger anytime :D

[Roger J Carlson]

That word is pure '60's, and will never lose its connotation. When Phil Collins' ballad-style remake of "Groovy Kind Of Love" was popular, it was already an anachronism by well over a decade. Feeling Groovy (59th Street Bridge Song) by Paul Simon is my favorite example.

[Jean Marie]

Feeling Groovy (59th Street Bridge Song) by Paul Simon is my favorite example.
One of my favorites, too. Paul has the most amazing staying power.

[InfinityGoddess]

Just because you don't want a child, doesn't mean it's a parasite, IG when it's in its fetal state.


par·a·site 2Fparasite"] /ˈpær[əˌsaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

From dictionary.com. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite)

Sounds to me that's exactly what a fetus is...

[aka eraser]

Fascinating thread. Like watching a dog chase its tail - only it doesn't hold my interest quite as long.

[Jean Marie]

You're using it in a negative connotation, IG. I get the fact that you don't want kids. You don't want one of those things in you, and that's fine, it's your choice.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Feeling Groovy, by Paul Simon....

[Jean Marie]

Fascinating thread. Like watching a dog chase its tail - only it doesn't hold my interest quite as long.
Yeah, well if we were talking about worms on the end of a hook and making flies and such, you'd be right in there...so hop on in :)

[Perks]

Just because you don't want a child, doesn't mean it's a parasite, IG when it's in its fetal state.Oh, I'm with IG on this one, Jean. People would say to me, "but isn't so cool that it's a little person in there?" To which I would reply, "No. That's just really, really, disturbing."

Parasite? Sure. And hey - you don't have to diaper a tapeworm once they get it out.

What was the question, again?

ETA - technically, you don't have to diaper a baby. But if you thought it was unpleasant when it was on the inside...

[Jean Marie]

*JM whistles for Kola...hey, Frank wants to watch you chase your tail. Yeah...anything for Frank, 'cause he's such a great guy. Ah, thanks Kola. Okay, only once though*

[robeiae]

par·a·site 2Fparasite"] /ˈpær[əˌsaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

From dictionary.com. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite)

Sounds to me that's exactly what a fetus is...
A fetus is not actually a parasite. Why? Because it's an outgrowth of the organism it is in--it's a part of reproduction, a natural facet of life. Note the words "another species" in the first definition. Now if you go with number two, you have just accepted that a fetus is identical to a person...

If I were you, I'd cut my losses here and just say "it's kinda like a parasite, or some such thing." Then you'll only be accused of making a poor analogy.

[Jean Marie]

Oh, I'm with IG on this one, Jean. People would say to me, "but isn't so cool that it's a little person in there?" To which I would reply, "No. That's just really, really, disturbing."

Parasite? Sure. And hey - you don't have to diaper a tapeworm once they get it out.

What was the question, again?

ETA - technically, you don't have to diaper a baby. But if you thought it was unpleasant when it was on the inside...
Right, but it's the way it's being presented, two different perspectives, Jaime. One is quite negative and the other isn't.

Know what I mean?

[Perks]

Right, but it's the way it's being presented, two different perspectives, Jaime. One is quite negative and the other isn't.

Know what I mean?Of course I know what you mean. I was being ridiculous, 'cause I thought how IG wanted to play. I'm easy.

(But you can't tell me when I'm preggers that it ain't a parasite. Get it ooouuuutttt!)

[Jean Marie]

Of course I know what you mean. I was being ridiculous, 'cause I thought how IG wanted to play. I'm easy.

(But you can't tell me when I'm preggers that it ain't a parasite. Get it ooouuuutttt!)
Out, I say, dammit! And, don't come back :D

Had to take a short break ;)

[Tiger]

Last entry here... I'll avoid any further temptation to pile on.

Because I can't right now. You need to prove your point that "all sides do it". That burden is not on me.

Ah, the burden is not on you because you don't want it.

I know enough of Limbaugh to know that he is a disgusting excuse of a human being. That much is enough for me.

That's enough for you because you don't want anything else.

The burden of proof that "everyone does it" belongs on everyone else, not me. Proving that my side doesn't do it is on me. That clear, yes?

I suggest that what you do and don't want does not define reality for the rest of us. I say this because you seem to think that what you want is some generalized statement of right and wrong; applicable to everyone.

I only care about the born. A fetus is at the mercy of its maternal host. I consider it a parasite because I don't want one in me ever. That doesn't mean I don't care about kids.

Again, what you consider something (or someone) to be does not make it such in fact--least of all, for anyone else. How can you reference a dictionary definition--that clearly contradicts your word usage--and seriously think it helps your case?

Truth is not predicated on what you want. I don't know, maybe if you followed "The Secret" closely enough, you will actually achieve a state of being in which what you want is just as important to the rest of the planet. But, for now....*

I'd actually pay admission see you perform in traffic court.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'd actually pay admission see you perform in traffic court.Or on Law and Order.

http://www.bigshotmag.com/images/law.jpg

[InfinityGoddess]

A fetus is not actually a parasite. Why? Because it's an outgrowth of the organism it is in--it's a part of reproduction, a natural facet of life. Note the words "another species" in the first definition. Now if you go with number two, you have just accepted that a fetus is identical to a person...

If I were you, I'd cut my losses here and just say "it's kinda like a parasite, or some such thing." Then you'll only be accused of making a poor analogy.

Tell me something, what is it that keeps the fetus alive in utero, then, if it's not a parasite? The mother's nutrients and oxygen that comes from her bloodstream and through the umbilical cord, of course. It saps her and gives her no benefit in return. That's the definition of a parasite.

Just because it's "a part of reproduction" doesn't mean that it doesn't have the same characteristics of a tapeworm in terms of how it gets its nutrients.

[robeiae]

Tell me something, what is it that keeps the fetus alive in utero, then, if it's not a parasite? The mother's nutrients and oxygen that comes from her bloodstream and through the umbilical cord, of course. It saps her and gives her no benefit in return. That's the definition of a parasite.

Just because it's "a part of reproduction" doesn't mean that it doesn't have the same characteristics of a tapeworm in terms of how it gets its nutrients.
Hey, you posted the definition and drew your conclusion. Obviously, the term doesn't mean what you thought it meant, as I noted. I'm just being helpful. Again.

And your response here is a redefinition of your dictionary definition. And it's incorrect. Parasites are not linked to their host by DNA. There are organisms from outside, and of a different species, BY DEFINITION. Like I said, just admit you're wrong and move along.

[InfinityGoddess]

Ah, the burden is not on you because you don't want it.

No, I asked other people to prove a certain point that "both sides harass and stalk people who dissent from their views" and they haven't given it. It's that simple. My point that my side "doesn't do it" is on me, that much I'll admit.


That's enough for you because you don't want anything else.

No, really. I simply cannot stand hate speech. It's ugly, it's mean-spirited, and downright poisonous. When I listened to Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" clip that once, I literally felt like I wanted to throw up. Seriously.

.
Again, what you consider something (or someone) to be does not make it such in fact--least of all, for anyone else. How can you reference a dictionary definition--that clearly contradicts your word usage--and seriously think it helps your case?

People can view things as they want to. I'm simply using a term that is in some ways, if not totally correct, term.

Truth is not predicated on what you want.

I'm aware of that. It's why I don't like infotainment. It only tells me the unimportant non-news stuff. But Big Media thinks that's what I want. Sure, it's a "want", but it's not a "need" and it's not public service. Truth is what I need to hear, even if I don't want to hear it.

I'd actually pay admission see you perform in traffic court.

Heheh, if I ever get there. I don't own a car, and never will. ;)

[InfinityGoddess]

Hey, you posted the definition and drew your conclusion. Obviously, the term doesn't mean what you thought it meant, as I noted. I'm just being helpful. Again.

And your response here is a redefinition of your dictionary definition. And it's incorrect. Parasites are not linked to their host by DNA. There are organisms from outside, and of a different species, BY DEFINITION. Like I said, just admit you're wrong and move along.

They are linked by a cord. That link is what's parasitic. The mom-to-be has no physical benefits to being pregnant. The fetus has a benefit; it has its needs fulfilled.

You don't have to be different species or different DNA to have a parasitic link, if that were true, there wouldn't be conjoined twins, would there?

[robeiae]

You don't have to be different species or different DNA to have a parasitic link, if that were true, there wouldn't be conjoined twins, would there?To be a PARASITE, in a strict biological sense, you must be a different species than your host. That's EXACTLY what the definition is, the one you posted.

To be a parasite in a metaphorical sense, you must be a person. So, if you accept that a fetus is a person, it can be called a parasite.

Your choice.

[Perks]

It saps her and gives her no benefit in return.
Um, that's actually crap. In the short term, there are endorphins and lots of positive and pleasant chemical interactions that can occur during pregnancy. You know, warm fuzzies. High self-esteem. Wish fulfillment. They don't always, and there are certainly times where the discomforts eclipse these, but unless you're suggesting that breeders are idiot masochists, you're a bit wide of the mark.

In the long term, pregnancy and nursing reduces instances of ovarian cancer and breast cancer.

[Dawno]

This thread is becoming a "you say tomato, I say rutabaga" argument.

[Perks]

This thread is becoming a "you say tomato, I say rutabaga" argument.
Except for the part that pregnancy is entirely parasitical and life-force sapping. That's just inaccurate. No potato, pahtahto - just wrong.

http://www.feedsyndicate.com/articles/7008707302

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/pregnancybenefits_03.html

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/breastfeeding/a/breastfeedingbe.htm

[WarrenP]

I do hope the thread keeps going though, I have not laughed so much at a political thread in a long time.

There are some serious gems in this thread.

[Perks]

You are a sick puppy.

[Dawno]

Except for the part that pregnancy is entirely parasitical and life-force sapping. That's just inaccurate. No potato, pahtahto - just wrong.

http://www.feedsyndicate.com/articles/7008707302

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregnancy/americanbaby/pregnancybenefits_03.html

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/breastfeeding/a/breastfeedingbe.htm

Oh, I just meant the whole definitions of words thing - I wasn't making a stand on the correctness or not, of any issues being discussed - even though I have one.

I believe words have real meanings and then there are also generally acknowledged connotations. But idiocyncratic usage of a term needs to be very very clearly explained.

If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with or understand then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.

Wouldn't you?

[Perks]

If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with or understand then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.

Wouldn't you?<Sob> <WAIL>

I would. I swear to god I would.

It's giving me blood pressure episodes, this nonsense. But I am, and have said as much before, in awe of the stamina around here. Needs to be bottled and sold.

[Dawno]

hey, writers - here's a major off topic request - Would someone give me an edit of that post I wrote above and tell me where I should have put my commas - I'm having serious comma issues these days - I pretty much have just stopped trying to use them.

[Andrew]

"No, I asked other people to prove a certain point that "both sides harass and stalk people who dissent from their views" and they haven't given it. It's that simple. My point that my side "doesn't do it" is on me, that much I'll admit."

You can't be serious and believe this, right? It's what the far left does.

[Jean Marie]

Oh, I just meant the whole definitions of words thing - I wasn't making a stand on the correctness or not, of any issues being discussed - even though I have one.

I believe words have real meanings and then there are also generally acknowledged connotations. But idiocyncratic usage of a term needs to be very very clearly explained.

If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with or understand then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.

Wouldn't you?

<Sob> <WAIL>

I would. I swear to god I would.

It's giving me blood pressure episodes, this nonsense. But I am, and have said as much before, in awe of the stamina around here. Needs to be bottled and sold.
Just like Jamie said, I would, too. And I'd swear on all that stuff, too.

I've got low blood pressure, so it's good for me to read this and respond. Better than the drugs and side effect nonsense. That junk put my mom in the hospital a couple of weeks ago, well actually it was the allergic reaction to the chemo, but that's another story. I digress.

If we could bottle and sell it, do you have any idea how much we could make. We could keep AW going...well, forever, couldn't we.

Words are tools to writers. If you don't comprehend your tools, best you find another occupation. Just sayin'.

[InfinityGoddess]

"No, I asked other people to prove a certain point that "both sides harass and stalk people who dissent from their views" and they haven't given it. It's that simple. My point that my side "doesn't do it" is on me, that much I'll admit."

You can't be serious and believe this, right? It's what the far left does.

Links? Examples? I'm still waiting.

Meantime, I've found more goodies about the story here (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/11/mcconnell-staffer-smear-graeme/#comments) and here (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/11/olbermann-and-maddow-on-the-rights-jihad-on-12-year-old-boy/#comments)(if we can get back on topic...).

[Perks]

hey, writers - here's a major off topic request - Would someone give me an edit of that post I wrote above and tell me where I should have put my commas - I'm having serious comma issues these days - I pretty much have just stopped trying to use them.I just shot my screen with shells full of rocksalt. Your posts look, if anything, over-puncuated.

Some were obliterated entirely. I feel much better.

"I'm not sayin' I'm one for violence. But it keeps me hangin' on."

[Jean Marie]

hey, writers - here's a major off topic request - Would someone give me an edit of that post I wrote above and tell me where I should have put my commas - I'm having serious comma issues these days - I pretty much have just stopped trying to use them.
Why, you hate commas, now :) You anti comma, you :D

Oh, I just meant the whole definitions of words thing. - I wasn't making a stand on the correctness or not, of any issues being discussed, even though I have one.

I believe words have real meanings, and then there are also generally acknowledged connotations. But, idiocyncratic usage of a term needs to be very, very clearly explained.

If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with, or understand, then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.

Wouldn't you?
Okie dokie, sweetie, I gotta go. See ya later :D

Ack, I might of missed one. But, Jaime can fix it. She's got her rock salt thingie...shoot away.....

[kristie911]

IG has a great future in politics.

If you can't dazzle them with intelligence, baffle them with bullshit.

Good job.

[Perks]

(if we can get back on topic...).

Ah. Excellent timing.

By all means.

[Dawno]

Goodies from Think Progress and Crooks and Liars - sites with NO AGENDA, folks.

[InfinityGoddess]

IG has a great future in politics.

If you can't dazzle them with intelligence, baffle them with bullshit.

Good job.

Actually, I intend to be a graphic novelist. :p I hate making speeches.

[Jean Marie]

Ah. Excellent timing.

By all means.
Yep, I'm oughta here.

Goodies from Think Progress and Crooks and Liars - sites with NO AGENDA, folks.
Good, 'cause I hate agendas.

[Sheryl Nantus]

Except for the part that pregnancy is entirely parasitical and life-force sapping. That's just inaccurate. No potato, pahtahto - just wrong.

I find that statement quite depressing.

Now, I don't have kids. Don't intend to, and thoroughly enjoy spoiling my niece and nephew something awful. Came to the conclusion years ago that I'm just too irresponsible to have kids and raise them properly - cats are about as far as I can go.

But to say such horrible things about pregnancy just blows my mind. I can understand a man saying it out of ignorance and misogyny, but for a woman? Even if you don't want to have children respect the process that brought you, I, and everyone else on this board into existence.

Quite depressing.

:(

[InfinityGoddess]

But to say such horrible things about pregnancy just blows my mind. I can understand a man saying it out of ignorance and misogyny, but for a woman? Even if you don't want to have children respect the process that brought you, I, and everyone else on this board into existence.

Quite depressing.

:(

Hate to break this to you, but pregnancy isn't all sunshine and roses (http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm):


exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection (http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm#note) including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover) Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis) Occasional complications and side effects:

hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease Less common (but serious) complications:

peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula More permanent side effects:

future infertility
permanent disability
death.

I think I'm pretty much being realistic.

[sassandgroove]

par·a·site 2Fparasite"] /ˈpær[əˌsaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

From dictionary.com. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite)

Sounds to me that's exactly what a fetus is...Ohh...you actually did some research. Too bad it doesn't support your point. See that bit about another species?

Tell me something, what is it that keeps the fetus alive in utero, then, if it's not a parasite? The mother's nutrients and oxygen that comes from her bloodstream and through the umbilical cord, of course. It saps her and gives her no benefit in return. That's the definition of a parasite.

Just because it's "a part of reproduction" doesn't mean that it doesn't have the same characteristics of a tapeworm in terms of how it gets its nutrients.I think many an expectant mother would argue that they do receive benefits. Benefits in addition to what Perks posted as well, including the hope and love of the new baby. Now we all know you don't want one. That is fine. But you can't just change the meaning of a word to suit yourself.


No, really. I simply cannot stand hate speech. It's ugly, it's mean-spirited, and downright poisonous. When I listened to Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" clip that once, I literally felt like I wanted to throw up. Seriously. I've been listening to him for over 3 years now and I have never heard hate speech from him. Again, how can you judge something when you, by your admission, haven't listened. It is one thing to decide you don't want to listen, it is another pass judgement like that.


People can view things as they want to. I'm simply using a term that is in some ways, if not totally correct, term.
That's not even a complete sentence.


I'm aware of that. It's why I don't like infotainment. It only tells me the unimportant non-news stuff. But Big Media thinks that's what I want. Sure, it's a "want", but it's not a "need" and it's not public service. Truth is what I need to hear, even if I don't want to hear it.What does this statement have to do with anything we've been discussing? And, it is obvious from this thread alone that you don't want to hear truth.

They are linked by a cord. That link is what's parasitic. The mom-to-be has no physical benefits to being pregnant. The fetus has a benefit; it has its needs fulfilled.

You don't have to be different species or different DNA to have a parasitic link, if that were true, there wouldn't be conjoined twins, would there?What does that(in bold) even mean? And Perks answered the top part pretty well, so lets see what she said again.

Um, that's actually crap. In the short term, there are endorphins and lots of positive and pleasant chemical interactions that can occur during pregnancy. You know, warm fuzzies. High self-esteem. Wish fulfillment. They don't always, and there are certainly times where the discomforts eclipse these, but unless you're suggesting that breeders are idiot masochists, you're a bit wide of the mark.

In the long term, pregnancy and nursing reduces instances of ovarian cancer and breast cancer.


I have never once implied you should have kids 'just becuase' and as I said earlier, I don't have kids either. I actually applaud you for making that decision, it is far better than people having kids 'just because they should' and then later resent them or worse. I am talking about an attitude indicated by comparing a fetus to a parasite, which you continue to dodge. I just wanted to add to what I said here.

Not only is likening a fetus to a parasite indicative of an attitude towards children, it is indicative of an attitude towards life and humanity. And by my reckoning, it isn't a good one.

[InfinityGoddess]

Anyways, I've done the Google search, and I haven't really found anything; just all of this stuff (http://www.google.com/search?q=Left+wing+bloggers+smearing+kids&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

[sassandgroove]

I find that statement quite depressing.

Now, I don't have kids. Don't intend to, and thoroughly enjoy spoiling my niece and nephew something awful. Came to the conclusion years ago that I'm just too irresponsible to have kids and raise them properly - cats are about as far as I can go.

But to say such horrible things about pregnancy just blows my mind. I can understand a man saying it out of ignorance and misogyny, but for a woman? Even if you don't want to have children respect the process that brought you, I, and everyone else on this board into existence.

Quite depressing.

:(You do realize you and Perks agree and it is IG who said a fetus is like a parasite, right?

[sassandgroove]

Oh, I just meant the whole definitions of words thing - I wasn't making a stand on the correctness or not, of any issues being discussed - even though I have one.

I believe words have real meanings and then there are also generally acknowledged connotations. But idiocyncratic usage of a term needs to be very very clearly explained.

If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with or understand then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.

Wouldn't you?Exactly. Language only works because we agree on meanings. You can't just decide a word has a different meaning and then expect everyone to just go along with you.

[InfinityGoddess]

I think many an expectant mother would argue that they do receive benefits. Benefits in addition to what Perks posted as well, including the hope and love of the new baby. Now we all know you don't want one. That is fine. But you can't just change the meaning of a word to suit yourself.

You need to read the list above and tell me how those things are "beneficial". I have stretch marks enough already (from having been fat) and I know that they are ugly as hell. Yes, there is the "baby" factor, but you also have to consider the permanent and temporary affects of being pregnant as well. Some people think it's worth it; others don't.

I've been listening to him for over 3 years now and I have never heard hate speech from him. Again, how can you judge something when you, by your admission, haven't listened. It is one thing to decide you don't want to listen, it is another pass judgement like that.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh?f=h_hot

You need to take a look at that and tell me how all those clips are not "hateful".

What does this statement have to do with anything we've been discussing? And, it is obvious from this thread alone that you don't want to hear truth.

I could argue the same for certain other people.

Not only is likening a fetus to a parasite indicative of an attitude towards children, it is indicative of an attitude towards life and humanity. And by my reckoning, it isn't a good one.

That's your opinion. How I feel about fetuses and born children are two different things. Fetuses are not people. Children are.

[sassandgroove]

You need to read the list above and tell me how those things are "beneficial". I have stretch marks enough already (from having been fat) and I know that they are ugly as hell. Yes, there is the "baby" factor, but you also have to consider the permanent and temporary affects of being pregnant as well. Some people think it's worth it; others don't.
That doesn't make it a parasite.



http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh?f=h_hot

You need to take a look at that and tell me how all those clips are not "hateful".
Taken out of context, anything can be construed as hateful if someone wants it to be.


I could argue the same for certain other people.Are you implying I am 'certain other people'? Because your statement was just nonsense.



That's your opinion. How I feel about fetuses and born children are two different things. Fetuses are not people. Children are. And as Rob already pointed out, if you are going by the second definition of parasite that you posted from dictionary.com, then you have to acknowledge a fetus as a person, and lose ground in the abortion debate. *Shrug* Now we're going in circles. You just won't see my point. All I am saying is that your attitude towards a human life is indicative of your attitude as a whole and is contradictory to your OP.

[InfinityGoddess]

Taken out of context, anything can be construed as hateful if someone wants it to be.

Sorry, but I heard the clip that Rush made about the guys at VoteVets.org and others. He said "soldiers", not "soldier". I've heard a bunch of clips in the past and they are hateful. He's a bigoted, hypocritical toadie. That opinion of mine will not change.


Are you implying I am 'certain other people'? Because your statement was just nonsense.

It could imply anyone.


And as Rob already pointed out, if you are going by the second definition of parasite that you posted from dictionary.com, then you have to acknowledge a fetus as a person, and lose ground in the abortion debate. *Shrug* Now we're going in circles. You just won't see my point. All I am saying is that your attitude towards a human life is indicative of your attitude as a whole and is contradictory to your OP.

Yeah, just because I don't care too much about a fetus, automatically means I'm a cold human being. Again, fetuses are not people. They aren't until they're born. The Frost boy is a born human being and a person. He matters more to me than some fetus living at the mercy of the woman carrying it. But that doesn't mean that I won't advocate for prenatal care, child care, adoption, as well as contraception and abortion.

Likewise, I am an advocate of SCHIP because it helps kids like him and his sister.

[Celia Cyanide]

They are linked by a cord. That link is what's parasitic. The mom-to-be has no physical benefits to being pregnant. The fetus has a benefit; it has its needs fulfilled.

What you are describing is commensalism, and not a parasite-host relationship.

In any event, I don't think a person's belief that a fetus is a parasite proves that person doesn't care about kids. Just like a person's belief in the sancity of every zygote doesn't prove that person cares about other people.

I agree with Monkey.

[Pat~]

:e2chain:


(Has anybody seen my pumpkin?)

[Sheryl Nantus]

You do realize you and Perks agree and it is IG who said a fetus is like a parasite, right?

oh, certainly... sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

I just have to repeat again how sad it is to see a woman talking about pregnancy as if it were a disease. There are thousands of women out there who would give anything to get pregnant and here's one who sees it as nothing more than a nuisance to be avoided at all terms.

I mean, heck... might as well denounce sex! All that messy work and all... and what do you have to show for it?

;)

[Sheryl Nantus]

I think I'm pretty much being realistic.

I'd be grateful no one showed your mother that list.

Now I have to call mine and thank her for going through all that for me.

:D

[InfinityGoddess]

I'd be grateful no one showed your mother that list.

Now I have to call mine and thank her for going through all that for me.

:D

Hah. My mom keeps telling me that it's "no big deal", yet after my brother was born, my dad got himself fixed fairly quickly, despite my mom wanting more kids. Seems he couldn't deal with a kid number three...

It's hard for me to thank her for going through being pregnant with me; I gave her even more hell just by having been born. And mostly because I was not a "typical little girl" (I'm androgynous). :X

[William Haskins]

It's hard for me to thank her for going through being pregnant with me

couldn't agree more.

[xhouseboy]

I gave her even more hell just by having been born.

I don't see what she's got to complain about. She got her website for a reasonable price.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

IG says it; she believes it; that settles it. :D

[Tiger]

I just have to repeat again how sad it is to see a woman talking about pregnancy as if it were a disease. ;)

Where have you been? It's not a disease, it's an infestation.

[InfinityGoddess]

I don't see what she's got to complain about. She got her website for a reasonable price.

Haha...I meant how I would give her hell every time we went clothes shopping or she tried to foist me in a dress while I was a kid. I kept going into tantrums and going, "NOOOO, DO NOT WANT." D:

[Jean Marie]

Fetuses are not people. Children are.
Bears repeating: Can't have one w/o the other.

IG says it; she believes it; that settles it. :D
And, so it is written.

Dawno said:
If I start using a clearly defined word in a way that nobody else can agree with or understand then I would be thinking very hard about why everyone was arguing with my usage.
Which, also bears repeating.

If it's pointed out by more than 1 person, that my argument(s) don't hold much weight, it behooves me to look in the mirror. That is, if I'm interested in ceasing swimming upstream and joining the group. Otherwise, I suppose I can carry on w/ my stubbornness and remain on the periphery of said community.

Of course, it remains an individual(s) choice.

[Jean Marie]

Where have you been? It's not a disease, it's an infestation.
Only if it's a multiple birth.

[Roger J Carlson]

Hate to break this to you, but pregnancy isn't all sunshine and roses (http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm):.Ah yes. Another website with NO AGENDA.

[InfinityGoddess]

Ah yes. Another website with NO AGENDA.

A medical OB/GYN site would have been no better. Would you like me to pull one up? I just got done doing all my homework for the evening, so I have plenty of time.

[oswann]

A medical OB/GYN site would have been no better. Would you like me to pull one up? I just got done doing all my homework for the evening, so I have plenty of time.

Oh crap. You're young as well?

Os.

[Perks]

A medical OB/GYN site would have been no better. Would you like me to pull one up? I just got done doing all my homework for the evening, so I have plenty of time.Please do. In fact, can you pull up ten or twenty -- maybe a few from developing countries for comparison?

Or maybe, just maybe, you can't tell me a thing about the discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth.

Your disdain for breeders is showing. Which is quite rude considering the deference you've demanded by making sure, in every thread you participate in, that we all know - again and again and again - that you're a lesbian. Good for you, IG. But the respect you demand for "being who you are" would be a little less shrill if you could curb your sneering at other people for being who they are, which - believe it or not - is more than mindless meat machines, churning out babies, oblivious to their own discomfort.

It's like anything else in life, there's a price exacted for a result. And we don't need your research to tell us it's sometimes unpleasant. You made a definitive statement saying there were no benefits to the process of pregnancy. Ignoring the fact that the species, arguably, should continue, I provided information that refuted that claim. If you think that pointing out that pregnant women get swollen ankles somehow discredits that, well, you're sillier than I thought.

[Unique]

Republicans say it now helps too many people with the means to help themselves.

And I say the Republicans are full of shit.

I'm poor enough to qualify and I can't get it for my child because I have FUCKING TRICARE - the next best thing to having NO INSURANCE because with deductibles and Co-pays and general jump through hoops cussedness - I still can't get treatment for myself or my son.

I own my own home, my own car and pay all my bills. So a hearty FUCK YOU
to anyone that says I should sell everything I have worked for and PAID TAXES for all my life so I can get a GD mammogram or stitches for a wound.

That's all I have to say on the subject. Have a nice day.

[oswann]

Oh crap. You're young as well?

Os.

My mistake, you're not that young. You can duke it out all you want.

Os.

[Perks]

Actually, I scrutinized that list and it's hilarious. It's absolutely astounding that we've survived as a species. From the first list of common pregnancy discomforts, at least thirteen of them are also symptoms of PMS and menstruation. Many throughout the list are also risks associated with taking the birth control pill. Juggling the balance of estrogen and progesterone is common to all women, regardless of how many children they have. And it carries health risks of all sorts.

Hair loss is simply incorrect. There is a hormone fluctuation during pregnancy that has the odd side effect of preventing routine hair-shedding. So, by delivery, most woman will have much thicker hair than they usually do. In four to twelve weeks, this balance returns to normal and you'll "blow your coat", losing hair by the handful. These are only the hairs you would have shed during the previous year, so you just catch up, as it were. Alarming if you don't know why, but not dangerous.

Pica is a rare eating disorder that affects people who are not pregnant as well. It may be tied to a trace mineral deficiency, but it's by no means singular to pregnant women and is not dangerous as long as you have the good sense to resist your insane cravings for clay and laundry starch.

The rest are generally found to be manageable by most women, as evidenced by the fact that they often opt to do it all again. In fact, pregnancy is so weird, that the very opposite of those listed ailments are also common, i.e. complete remission of seasonal allergies, improved sexual function and enjoyment, resolution of mild acne, buoyant moods, deep peaceful sleep with vivid dreams and recall, etc.

I'd like to see a list drawn up of the potential dangers and discomforts risked by, say, playing on a weekend softball league.

It's also amazing how many of the permanent 'side-effects' of pregnancy listed on the page are cosmetic in nature, when I'm quite sure that this woman who owns the site would be incandescent were anyone to suggest that her worth was directly tied to the firmness of her breasts, the radiance of her skin and the tautness of her vagina.

Amusingly, she includes 'future infertility' as a risked side effect to the heinous trial and trauma that is childbirth.

That website is a joke.

[sassandgroove]

And I say the Republicans are full of shit.

I'm poor enough to qualify and I can't get it for my child because I have FUCKING TRICARE - the next best thing to having NO INSURANCE because with deductibles and Co-pays and general jump through hoops cussedness - I still can't get treatment for myself or my son.

I own my own home, my own car and pay all my bills. So a hearty FUCK YOU
to anyone that says I should sell everything I have worked for and PAID TAXES for all my life so I can get a GD mammogram or stitches for a wound.

That's all I have to say on the subject. Have a nice day.But government isn't the answer. Adding to the program raises taxes, which will take more money from our pockets and make us more dependant on the gov't. If we had fewer taxes, then we'd retain more of our earings and could handle expenses better. Also we need more competition amoung the insurance companies so we can get good coverage that isn't prohibitively expensive, as well as consistant billing from doctors, not different scales for different insurance companies and individuals.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'd like to see a list drawn up of the potential dangers and discomforts risked by, say, playing on a weekend softball league.

or being a graphic artist.

:ROFL:

[Perks]

or being a graphic artist.

:ROFL:

-carpal tunnel syndrome
-stress myopia
-increase incidence of paper-cuts
-lumbar spinal subluxation
-cervical spinal subluxation
-exposure to higher levels of radiation from prolonged computer proximity
-hemorrhoids
-constipation
-myriad complications from lack of exercise and too much carry out
-depression
-blah, blah, blah...

[sassandgroove]

How about the side effects of living.

[WarrenP]

This thread is becoming like the forever Christmas gift, it just keeps giving and giving...

[sassandgroove]

Also, anything worth having/doing is worth a sacrifice of somekind.

[Roger J Carlson]

How about the side effects of living.That subject is just too depressing.

[robeiae]

Tough room...

[Dawno]

How about the side effects of living.

Whatever they are, it's better than the alternative...

[Jean Marie]

Tough room...
Gonna get tougher, later.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Quit pickin' it, y'all! It'll never heal!

[robeiae]

I'm the peacemaker. As usual.

[sassandgroove]

OFG, Oh but it is fun.

[Jean Marie]

I'm the peacemaker. As usual.
Our own little ambassador of good will.

[Jean Marie]

Or, good will hunting.

[robeiae]

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

[Jean Marie]

Sweep, sweep...

[Dawno]

I'm the peacemaker. As usual.

Perhaps you've got a different definition of peacemaker than I do - like the one used in the days of the wild West? ;)

[robeiae]

Perhaps (http://www.maine.gov/mma/images/m109_howitzer.jpg)...

[sassandgroove]

Sorry, but I heard the clip that Rush made about the guys at VoteVets.org and others. He said "soldiers", not "soldier". I've heard a bunch of clips in the past and they are hateful. He's a bigoted, hypocritical toadie. That opinion of mine will not change.

Let me try this again.


Taken out of context, anything can be construed as hateful if someone wants it to be.

[Celia Cyanide]

what were we talking about again?

[Jean Marie]

what were we talking about again?
I've no idea, but it's like an MVA (multi vehicle accident), being an emt, I can't turn away.

[robeiae]

what were we talking about again?
My big gun.

[InfinityGoddess]

Geez. I go to school for a few hours to watch a long, boring movie and look at what I come back to.



Your disdain for breeders is showing. Which is quite rude considering the deference you've demanded by making sure, in every thread you participate in, that we all know - again and again and again - that you're a lesbian. Good for you, IG. But the respect you demand for "being who you are" would be a little less shrill if you could curb your sneering at other people for being who they are, which - believe it or not - is more than mindless meat machines, churning out babies, oblivious to their own discomfort.

I think you read me wrong. I do not have a disdain for people who breed, generally speaking. If you can handle having kids and the deal with pregnancy, that's fine. I don't care about your choices in life, because they are, after all, your choices.

I'm simply showing that link that I did because those are things I wouldn't go through. It's fine with me if someone else wants to risk all those things (most particularly, the more serious stuff).

Furthermore, the fact that certain people even brought up pregnancy is not relevant to this topic. It came up because someone assumed that just because I'm not as inclined to "save" a fetus, that it means that I don't care about born humans. That's a stupid assumption to make. I don't hate kids and I don't hate parents. I don't even hate fetuses either, but I'm not inclined to care about them nearly as much as a born human.

To sass: Look, I know what I heard. Rush is always going to be claiming he was "taken out of context" because that's his common excuse. He's not man enough to ever admit a mistake and the fact that he whines incessantly about people criticizing him over the stupid shit he says speaks to me that he is nothing but a sad little man who has a very thin skin. And not just him, either.

[SpookyWriter]

Geez. I go to school for a few hours to watch a long, boring movie and look at what I come back to.


You are scaring me.

I can't breed a bad enough dream from this education protocol, but you did a good job.

Thanks

[Haggis]

I think you read me wrong. I do not have a disdain for people who breed, generally speaking.

:Wha:

[sassandgroove]

Furthermore, the fact that certain people even brought up pregnancy is not relevant to this topic. It came up because someone assumed that just because I'm not as inclined to "save" a fetus, that it means that I don't care about born humans. That's a stupid assumption to make. I don't hate kids and I don't hate parents. I don't even hate fetuses either, but I'm not inclined to care about them nearly as much as a born human.Since I am the "Someone" I will just say I brought it up becuase it is relevant. I've already said why.

To sass: Look, I know what I heard. Rush is always going to be claiming he was "taken out of context" because that's his common excuse. He's not man enough to ever admit a mistake and the fact that he whines incessantly about people criticizing him over the stupid shit he says speaks to me that he is nothing but a sad little man who has a very thin skin. And not just him, either.Again, I ask you, how do you know if you don't listen to him? And just to be clear, my question isn't so much about Rush as it is this: How do you, as a person who has admitted that you dont' listen, know he is whiney and doesn't admit when he makes mistakes? And don't reference some other source. those are all out of context. It is not an excuse. it is a fact. Whether it is a source bent toward supporting Rush or conservative or whatever, or if it supporting the opposition, a clip will always be out of context, so you can't know what a radio host is really like. You just can't. I don't listen to Howard Stern (just picked at random), becuase I chose not to, but I also don't presume to pass judgement on him and claim I know what he is like. SO that must mean you are either psychic or -er- not qualified to make those claims.

[InfinityGoddess]

:Wha:

It simply means I don't have an issue with parents, provided that their kids are behaved. I can only handle screaming kids in very low doses. :p

Since I am the "Someone" I will just say I brought it up becuase it is relevant. I've already said why.

Hardly. Abortion and childbirth has very little to do with some disabled kid getting slimed because he presented a good case for SCHIP.

Again, I ask you, how do you know if you don't listen to him?

I've heard the audio clips. They're bad enough.

[SarahinOhio]

I can only handle screaming kids in very low doses. :p

How do you handle us here, then? :tongue