André Jute, extreme, unsuitable for purpose, dangerous, dull, overpriced

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:41:19 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

I just read it. Compare the structure, in term so amount of quotes,
to a proper news article, or to an article at a website like
talkingpointsmemo.com. It's not news -- it's opinion or argument
structured to mislead you.

It is the best news that it is possible to get because it does in fact
provide direct quotations - or do you think the quotations are being made
up?

They are too short to evaluate on context, particulary when coming
from such a biased source.

That's an opinion blog. Noting wrong with that, but if that's your
main or sole sources of news, you'll be severely misinformed. And the
quality of thinking in the opinions presented is weak because the
authors do not link to or post extended pieces of their "opposition."

Compare that to opinion pieces in, say, talkingpointsmemo.com, a
liberal blog.

"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:41:19 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

I just read it. Compare the structure, in term so amount of quotes,
to a proper news article, or to an article at a website like
talkingpointsmemo.com. It's not news -- it's opinion or argument
structured to mislead you.

It is the best news that it is possible to get because it does in fact
provide direct quotations - or do you think the quotations are being made
up?

They are too short to evaluate on context, particulary when coming
from such a biased source.

The quotations are right to the point. After all, I only wanted to know how
Obama had voted. The only biased sources I know of are the liberal ones.
They lie all the time about everything.

That's an opinion blog. Noting wrong with that, but if that's your
main or sole sources of news, you'll be severely misinformed. And the
quality of thinking in the opinions presented is weak because the
authors do not link to or post extended pieces of their "opposition."

I can easily separate opinion from hard news. Everything I needed to know
was right there.

Compare that to opinion pieces in, say, talkingpointsmemo.com, a
liberal blog.

I get the liberal slant on things all day long from MSNBC and CNN as well as
all of the broadcast networks including PBS and NPR. Only Fox News is fair
and balanced. I would not be caught dead reading anything on a liberal blog.
Horrors!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Jun 9, 3:27*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Still Just Me... wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:45:10 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

You know, after your "oh-so-sincere" apology for making a false
accusation about me, I thought maybe there was hope for debating or
arguing ISSUES with you in a respectful and HONEST manner.

But I see you're no better than Flogger (a lying weasel of the first
order), so I'll just have to plonk yet another manifestation of your
cowardly anonymous user name. *I'm sure you'll change it again soon
enough.

I will wait a short bit, however, to see if you reply to the Human
Events article quoted twice now, as I'm genuinely curious as to what
you'll say (if anything).

And then...Buh-bye.

I don't care to debate abortion with you. We disagree on when life
begins - at conception or at the point defined by the Supreme Court.
We also disagree that later term abortions are sometimes necessary for
sincere reasons. We also disagree that anyone would have a late term
abortion without sincere analysis, and difficulty confronting, a very
difficult set of circumstances.

With that in mind, I don't see any point in debating the issue with
you.

What a coward. *I posted something about Obama, and you asked for a citation
or reference. *I replied in my own words, giving you "search terms"; and
Dolan provided a link and quotes from an article about it. *THEN you decide
you don't want to discuss it.

I, too, have no desire to debate abortion. *That isn't the point. *You asked
for a citation as if what I said was false or made up, and I and another
gave it to you. *Now you're hiding, deflecting, playing games.

Guess I should have expected as much from "Just A Stillborn Brain", given
your track record.

You're really dishonest and cowardly.

*PLONK*


HE's a coward ... but YOU can't even face his WORDS ??

Got it.

http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/li...e/drydrunk.htm

"Still Just Me..." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks
wrote:


Guess I should have expected as much from "Just A Stillborn Brain",
given
your track record.

You're really dishonest and cowardly.

*PLONK*


HE's a coward ... but YOU can't even face his WORDS ??


He, he, he,

Prove Snortit wrong, get plonked.

Trim Snortit's post, get plonked.

Refuse to acknowledge "stir the pot facts" posted by a self-admitted
troll (Ed Dolan) and get plonked.

He's funnier than Dolan at times, and he doesn't even try to be.

"Still Just Me..." wrote in message
...
[...]
Prove Snortit wrong, get plonked.

Trim Snortit's post, get plonked.

Refuse to acknowledge "stir the pot facts" posted by a self-admitted
troll (Ed Dolan) and get plonked.

He's funnier than Dolan at times, and he doesn't even try to be.

Note how I do not plonk you. That is because I can get on your level - which
is that of a snake in the grass.

You are a cowardly-brainless-liberal (all one word). If anyone wants to
plonk you, it sure makes lots of sense to me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Still Just Me..." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:27:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:


What a coward. I posted something about Obama, and you asked for a
citation
or reference. I replied in my own words, giving you "search terms"; and
Dolan provided a link and quotes from an article about it. THEN you
decide
you don't want to discuss it.

There's a difference between cowardice and boredom.

You are a cowardly-brainless-liberal (all one word). That accounts totally
for your behavior. Now go **** yourself and quit bothering the honorable
members of these noble newsgroups.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks
wrote:

On Jun 9, 3:27*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

You're really dishonest and cowardly.

*PLONK*

HE's a coward ... but YOU can't even face his WORDS ??

Got it.

http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/li...e/drydrunk.htm

He did not UNDERSTAND that he would be PLONNKED by BS for his lying an
dcheatining dishonesty TYPICAL, often snipping material to reMOVE
conTEXT. so he was PLONKED. Typical really.

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:38:19 -0400, Still Just Me...
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks
wrote:


Guess I should have expected as much from "Just A Stillborn Brain", given
your track record.

You're really dishonest and cowardly.

*PLONK*


HE's a coward ... but YOU can't even face his WORDS ??


He, he, he,

Prove Snortit wrong, get plonked.

Trim Snortit's post, get plonked.

You cannot spell it. Spell it right. It IS PLONKED (all caps: ALL
CAPS).

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:21:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Still Just Me... wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

{NOTE ALL CONTEXT REMOVED SO A NEW READER IS AS CLUELESS AS STILL
CLUELESS -- NO MEAN FEAT}

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?) never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

I never respond to Ed with any goal except exchanging humor. If you
think he's serious about anything he posts you are doltish. He's
trolling for fun, and you're very easily hooked.

OK, give this a go:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant
Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term
abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S.
House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who
survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies
who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention."

"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in
committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary
Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted "present." At
the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in
2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind
the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and
left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant
Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support
of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented
them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal
resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show
them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being
treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois
State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and forthright,"
but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested "doctors really don't
care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life
because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would
watch an infant that is viable die." He told her, "That may be your
assessment, and I don't see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is
to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that."

What about the above do you dispute?

BS


I, personally, don't want to pay to have unwanted premature babies
kept alive. They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just make it to
9 months and almost universally have major problems for the rest of
their lives. I don't want to pay even for children that are wanted.

Considering that we have almost seven BILLION people alive, and all
kinds of kids waiting for adoption, I just don't see the need.

dgk wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 11:21:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Still Just Me... wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

{NOTE ALL CONTEXT REMOVED SO A NEW READER IS AS CLUELESS AS STILL
CLUELESS -- NO MEAN FEAT}

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?) never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

I never respond to Ed with any goal except exchanging humor. If you
think he's serious about anything he posts you are doltish. He's
trolling for fun, and you're very easily hooked.

OK, give this a go:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced
Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that
survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law,
the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush.
Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the
Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for
babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion
and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving
medical attention."

"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed
it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in
the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he
voted "present." At the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went
Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a
vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime
mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies'
being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in
support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also
testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive
Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and
presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my
neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association,
trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies
the same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the
Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear
and forthright," but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested
"doctors really don't care about children who are being born with a
reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their
pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable
die." He told her, "That may be your assessment, and I don't see any
evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more
burden on a woman and I can't support that."

What about the above do you dispute?

BS


I, personally, don't want to pay to have unwanted premature babies
kept alive.

They weren't "premature" you heartless, anonymous (big surprise) dolt. They
SURVIVED botched abortions.

They cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just make it to
9 months and almost universally have major problems for the rest of
their lives. I don't want to pay even for children that are wanted.

Considering that we have almost seven BILLION people alive, and all
kinds of kids waiting for adoption, I just don't see the need.

Yeah, what's another human life... BS