Gibberish of the day!

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:32 pm

Of course, tzor, but that wasn't the guy's point.

-Crissa

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:18 pm

I can't for the life of me decide which is more gibberishly today...

[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019188.php wrote:Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)[/url]]It ought to be from 80 people in the center of the Senate, I would think, [to have centrist support for healthcare reform]

...or...

[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019183.php wrote:Rep Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn)[/url]]That we're not going to cry 'emergency' every time we have a Katrina, every time we have a tsunami, every time we have a need for extra spending, that we don't go call for a special appropriation that allows us to circumvent the PAYGO rules.

Sorry for all the links being Washington Monthly, but they're just where they are today.

Runner up is the 'Democrats for Life' ex-board member...

[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019187.php wrote:Rep Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)[/url]]I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception,

...Apparently they kicked him out for not being anti-contraception. I'm not sure they're entirely clear on what the Democratic platform is.

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:11 am

I'm totally with Ryan on that one. If I had my druthers I'd outlaw fetal abortion entirely with the only exceptions given for rape, incest and health (with states to define those terms - including the transition from blastocyst or whatever to fetus), but I will never understand people who hate contraception or argue for ineffective sex ed courses.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:55 pm

Crissa wrote:Runner up is the 'Democrats for Life' ex-board member...

[url=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019187.php wrote:Rep Tim Ryan (D-Ohio)[/url]]I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception,
...Apparently they kicked him out for not being anti-contraception. I'm not sure they're entirely clear on what the Democratic platform is.

-Crissa

Yes, his recent votes in favor of taxpayer funded abortions wasn't the reason he was asked to leave. Democrats for Life: Congressman Ryan Losing His Way? - Catholic Online The contraception thing was a straw man he is using to save face.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:24 pm

Crissa wrote:Sorry for all the links being Washington Monthly, but they're just where they are today.

Using the Washington Monthly as a fact source is as laughable as quoting Rush Limbaugh or any other extremist. I might as well quote you the bible to settle the origin of species debate.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:06 pm

Lich-Loved wrote:Using the Washington Monthly as a fact source is as laughable as quoting Rush Limbaugh or any other extremist. I might as well quote you the bible to settle the origin of species debate.

Are any of the quotes incorrect, unsourced, or out of context?

No?

Then shut up.

There is no equivalency between an 'entertainer' who plays alternate leader of the GOP and insult comic and a wonk magazine.

-Crissa

tzor wrote:Yes, his recent votes in favor of taxpayer funded abortions wasn't the reason he was asked to leave. Democrats for Life: Congressman Ryan Losing His Way? - Catholic Online The contraception thing was a straw man he is using to save face.

Notice something about this article?

Yes, please note that there is no source on this vote. Because he actually voted for the amendment to block abortion funding.

They're just saving face.

Sourcing. It's not just for journalism.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:08 pm

Crissa wrote:Are any of the quotes incorrect, unsourced, or out of context?

How would you know? Were you there? No you weren't. You are a mindless drone. In all my time of reading what you have posted, as tedious as it was, I haven't seen a shred of individuality, just smug self-assuredness mixed with ample doses of idiocy, which in you forms a potent cocktail of ignorance so vast and deep it makes one's head swim.

Not to be didactic, though it is certainly needed when dealing with you, but your reliance upon a source that is admittedly biased taints your position, even if from time to time the source is accurate. For example, the context of the quotes you provided is missing. Though I suppose such a thing never occurred to you, contextual information is very important in communication. Given that you cite biased sources with a clearly stated agenda, it stands to reason they might very well bias what they publish to best serve their revenue generating base. Oh and since controversy brings visitors to agree or disagree, that can't hurt their ad revenue either, could it?

This is lesson one. I am willing to provide further instruction in the area of critical thinking and am willing to do so for free; I hate to see a mind left to waste when there is at least some hope of a recovery.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:17 pm

Lich Loved's lessons in critical thinking.

Number 1)

Don't trust information sources he doesn't like, exclusively on his say so, "because".

The end.

Stay tuned for lesson number 2!

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:05 am

PL: what makes you think there even IS a number two? You summed it all up right there.

But clearly we need some kind of guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable source. I propose "Some guy at the pub" as being reasonable, and Wikipedia, the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Mail as not.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:18 am

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I don't think anyone takes these people seriously.

Wishful thinking much?

Absentminded_Wizard · Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:29 am

Lich-Loved wrote:
Crissa wrote:Are any of the quotes incorrect, unsourced, or out of context?
How would you know? Were you there? No you weren't. You are a mindless drone. In all my time of reading what you have posted, as tedious as it was, I haven't seen a shred of individuality, just smug self-assuredness mixed with ample doses of idiocy, which in you forms a potent cocktail of ignorance so vast and deep it makes one's head swim.

Not to be didactic, though it is certainly needed when dealing with you, but your reliance upon a source that is admittedly biased taints your position, even if from time to time the source is accurate. For example, the context of the quotes you provided is missing. Though I suppose such a thing never occurred to you, contextual information is very important in communication. Given that you cite biased sources with a clearly stated agenda, it stands to reason they might very well bias what they publish to best serve their revenue generating base. Oh and since controversy brings visitors to agree or disagree, that can't hurt their ad revenue either, could it?

This is lesson one. I am willing to provide further instruction in the area of critical thinking and am willing to do so for free; I hate to see a mind left to waste when there is at least some hope of a recovery.

As much as Crissa just regurgitates left-wing conventional wisdom in her posts, you're being way to hard on The Washington Monthly. While it's a liberal magazine, it's hardly extremist, and mentioning it in the same sentence with Rush Limbaugh is laughable. If you notice, every single blog post they do gives you copious links to source material (you know, so you can see if their quotes are out of context). Rush Limbaugh, OTOH, pulls a lot of his stuff out ass without attribution or evidence of any kind.

While Crissa may need some lessons on critical thinking, you look like the last person anybody should be taking such advice from.

tzor wrote:Yes, his recent votes in favor of taxpayer funded abortions wasn't the reason he was asked to leave.

As part of a bill that also funds abstinence education, among other things. Nothing in the bill directly uses taxpayer funds to pay for an abortion. The whole pro-life case against him is that Planned Parenthood (which funds contraception as well as abortion) would get some money under the bill, which might be used to fund a few abortions.

Given Ryan's actual record on abortion, Ryan is not "turning his back on the [pro-life] community at every turn," as your article writes. In fact, the absence of an explicit ban on funding abortions is probably the result of the fact that his co-sponsor was a liberal female House member. But of course, to social conservatives, there can be no compromise, ever. You must get the whole loaf or nothing. This is the kind of thinking that's resulting in these people losing political influence.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:30 pm

sex ed ≠ abortion.

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:52 pm

Not according to Planned Parenthood; sex education is all about the joys of teaching children about their abortion services.

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:05 pm

Guess who's never had any sex education.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:26 pm

tzor, there's nothing about abortion (aside that it exists in another pamphlet) in their sex ed, std, and birth control materials.

Sheesh.

-Crissa

violence in the media · Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:52 pm

tzor wrote:Not according to Planned Parenthood; sex education is all about the joys of teaching children about their abortion services.

If your kids would rather get secret abortions than talk to you about sex...I hate to tell you this, but the problem isn't with Planned Parenthood.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:07 pm

Akula wrote:Guess who's never had any sex education.

Hey I'm an old fart remember? That means I was in the 6th grade around 1974. Back then I had a "double education" (meaning that I got to see the film for the girl's as well as the boy's along with my father and we both were upset that the girl's film was more informative than the guys) but I would guess I probably missed out on half of the really good stuff.

Crissa wrote:tzor, there's nothing about abortion (aside that it exists in another pamphlet) in their sex ed, std, and birth control materials.

Of course not, what do you think they are ... STUPID? No, what they do is to ecourage the administrators to require the kids to go to "voluntary" (but oddly enough required) health fairs outside of the school campus. All encouragement is strictly oral and "off the record."

I have no objection to a good sex education, as long as it is really a good solid education. I do not think that abstenance only is anything remotely like a good policy, but the promotion of abstenance (even if not absolute) is a good thing. Simply put, the frontal lobe doesn't come into full effect into later in life and most pre-teen and teens think with the portion of their brain that processes their "gut" feelings, thus often acting more on impluses than they normally would. (qv NIMH article)

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:36 pm

Yeah, but that was exactly the point that Rep. Ryan was being ousted for - he voted against funding for abortion, and then suggested paying for sex ed, and they said he was insufficiently pro-life.

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:31 am

From what I read, it was a proposal to fund Planned Parenthood, and the money once it hit them was theirs to spend.

Yes, they fund excellent contraceptive programs... and also abortion-related items.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:00 am

Well, they were required to provide the sex-ed materials and service, just like anyone else so contracted.

You might as well say when I buy an ice cream from the street vendor he can go and spend that money on other things other than ice cream - but he still has to give me ice cream.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:26 am

Crissa wrote:You might as well say when I buy an ice cream from the street vendor he can go and spend that money on other things other than ice cream - but he still has to give me ice cream.

That's just the kind of policy which will get you served up a scoop of MURDERED BABY.

Absentminded_Wizard · Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:14 am

Crissa wrote:Yeah, but that was exactly the point that Rep. Ryan was being ousted for - he voted against funding for abortion, and then suggested paying for sex ed, and they said he was insufficiently pro-life.

-Crissa

Do you have a source that says he voted against funding for abortion in the bill we're talking about? I know he voted against funding abortion with funds from the health-care reform bill, but I haven't seen anything else.

But really, I think this one bill was a fig leaf anyway. Going by his record, he's voted against the hardcore pro-life lobby on a couple of key edge-case issues (embryonic stem-cell research and morning-after contraception). Instead of coming out and saying, "Even though this guy votes with us 80% of the time according to NRLC, these two issues are still deal-breakers, at least as far as leadership positions are concerned," the pro-life Dems have tried to make it sound like he suddenly wants to spend taxpayer money to force women to have abortions.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:24 am

I'd agree with that assessment.

Hardcores ruin it for everyone. I ran across a quote yesterday from a MI Democrat who said that he doesn't have town meetings because 25% of his constituency believes that Rumsfeld and the Pentagon brought down the WTC.

Democracy is why we can't have nice things. Only mediocre things, in abundance.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:11 pm

mean_liar wrote:From what I read, it was a proposal to fund Planned Parenthood, and the money once it hit them was theirs to spend.

Yes, they fund excellent contraceptive programs... and also abortion-related items.

In the eyes of many pro-life groups funding Planned Parenthood is funding abortion. I know Crissa will strongly disagree with that, but that is a strong belief of the pro-life community.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:30 pm

It's true, birth control inevitably leads to abortions. After all, not getting pregnant in the first place almost always leads to a baby getting its brains vacuumed out nine months later.