Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama boom at foxnews... Ratings soar... Night of 1/28/09... Viewers...
FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,891,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,034,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,306,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,299,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,155,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,581,000
CNN COOPER 1,559,000
CNN KING 1,420,000
CNN BLITZER 1,490,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,435,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,398,000
When one reads the amount of viewers at each of these channels... remember that the most politically diverse crowd is the crowd who watches FoxNews.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
From a Debate Many Yearn Ago
“No PapaG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice. NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)
Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.
Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted the child. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents.
Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least.
(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)
If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?
- “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?”
Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. You are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.
[An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.]
Jehovah gave His Son out of love for us while Allah expects your children as martyrs.
I will embolden the area in the below quote that caught my eye. Remember, while Islam is technically a theistic religion, it differs from Judaism and Christianity by this:
Apparently, Allah willed this rape... which is why (typically) in Muslim cultures the man is supreme and he can get away with these acts... because Allah willed man to rule over women in a supreme way. In fact, girls who start to dress in Western wear and trend towards Western culture can be killed (have been killed) by family members - called honor killings. However, often times these girls are raped by their brothers and the brothers friends before the killing part comes. Because they cannot kill her due to the simple fact that she wears lipstick, however, if she is a woman/girl that has committed adultery, then she can be killed.
The rape by family members fits the bill of adultery, and she is killed. Keep this in mind as you read the following, that within the Judeo-Christian framework, rape is always morally wrong, God does not will it, ever. However, in Islam, it can be willed as well as commanded in fideistic terms. I doubt this distinction about religion and its logical conclusion will be reached on ABC tonight.