Anti-semite
What a horrible, horrible woman.
Hmm, in this context, I could see an upside to the ObamaCare “death panels”. This lady is taking up valuable oxygen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 2201 hrs
She has the same sentiments as the “peace activists” on the flotilla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ&feature=player_embedded
I’m glad that my grandparents who escaped from Poland to Israel, but lost 2 sons and many other family members in the process, aren’t alive to hear this type of bullshit.
Posted by Limor on June 04, 2010 at 2207 hrs
Odd how these are depicted as the compassionate ones and Conservatives are demonized as heartless, yet when the light of reality is shines upon them the true horror of these people’s despicable soullessness becomes clearly visible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2010 at 2231 hrs
Helen Thomas is almost 90. Old people say some goofy, confused things sometimes (see Greek, Jimmy The or Robertson, Pat). Her remarks are simultaneously silly and reprehensible, and someone should really just put her to bed for her own good.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 05, 2010 at 0052 hrs
Sorry, RS….that comment don’t cut it. She’s appears to be quite lucid in this video, and appears to be speaking from her black heart, not her tapioca pudding brain.
And this is the “Dean” (ette) of the White Press corps? 90 or not, she should know when to keep her Palestinian-loving mouth shut.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 0700 hrs
The woman has been a disgraceful example of a journalist for years… now she has added disgraceful human being to the list.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 0910 hrs
The voice of the MSM.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 0926 hrs
I’m going to start a Twitter feed: “Shit my ancient White House correspondent says.” It’ll be a hit. I’ll get book offers and they’ll make a TV show out of it. Maybe they can get Walter Matthau to play her. No, wait—he’s dead. Maybe they can make Kathy Bates look older.
Taken at face value these remarks are totally insensitive and offensive. If she really harbors the kind of feelings toward Jews and Israel that her comments seem to suggest, to hell with the old bat.
At the same time, the idea that “the MSM” here in America is somehow anti-Israel is ludicrous. In fact, I often think the American people and their media need to take a hard look at who and what they’re supporting there.
Posted by scott on June 05, 2010 at 0958 hrs
In fact, I often think the American people and their media need to take a hard look at who and what they’re supporting there.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Until they’re not.
That’s as concise as a summary as I can make.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on June 05, 2010 at 1053 hrs
The idea that the mainstream media is antisemitic is ludicrous and ignorant (and rather ironic, considering the common complaint about zionist control of the media). You do know that there’s a very strong Jewish presence in the media world, don’t you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1435 hrs
She kinda looks like great grandma after she’s had about 5 too many rum and cokes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1609 hrs
Always amazing to watch the “pro-Israel” press.
Ask someone about their citizenship status and you are a raging racist and bigot acting like Hitler’s Nazis.
Support a group that has launched over 4000 rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill people because they are Jewish, and you are a heroic peace activist.
Use deadly force when after being attacked by “heroic peace activists” with knives, clubs, and firebombs while boarding a vessel that is illegally running a blockade to support terrorists and you are murderers and war criminals.
Yeah, the “media” really supports Israel…. just like Helen Thomas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1619 hrs
Check, ludicrous and ignorant. We covered that in comments 8 and 10.
Posted by scott on June 05, 2010 at 1626 hrs
ludicrous, ignorant, irrational .... or in other words someone who disagrees with scott
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1804 hrs
And NYTexan.
Posted by scott on June 05, 2010 at 1806 hrs
Oh, come on. Helen Thomas made an awful statement. Seriously messed up. But you can’t attribute her words to the various groups to which she belongs. Hers doesn’t represent the views of all or most journalists. She doesn’t speak for all liberals, certainly not even most. She’s a woman who made a despicable statement and she deserves whatever criticism she gets because of it.
What ticks me off about the picture of her and Obama on the top of Drudge is that it attempts to make her nasty comments rub off on him. That’s no different than when people attribute Pat Robertson’s comments to all Christians or Ann Coulter’s comments to all conservatives. People’s comments stand on their own. They are all hers. Let her wallow in them. Don’t drag others into her pit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1853 hrs
Not a coincidence that the same people defending the anti-Semetic media are same fellow travelers sympathetic towards terrorists @ Gitmo & Islamists in Gaza.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1858 hrs
Nicely said, Wendy.
As for Helen, I haven’t seen a face that scary since Joan Crawford passed away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1923 hrs
Forget Helen’s doddering comments. The issue of Israel and Palestine is MASSIVELY complex, and stupid comments just muddy the water. Some 750,000 Palestinians were evicted from Israel upon its creation in 1948, and it’s the fate of these people, and their descendants, that is central to the ongoing conflict. Should all the Jew who fled to Israel simply go back to the country they (or their parents) came from? Of course not. But this doesn’t mean we can then just ignore the plight of the hundreds of thousands of people who lost homes and land that they’d lived on for centuries.
Further, it’s critically important to recognize that acknowledging the plight of Palestinians and questioning their fate during the creation of Israel does not equal antisemitism. One can take issue with a political state without taking issue with the ethnicity and/or religion of its people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1953 hrs
Typo: That should be, all the Jews in that fourth sentence, obviously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1955 hrs
Just to be clear, she said “Poland, Germany and America and everywhere else”, meaning, I suppose, that they should simply return to their home country. Not, as your headline insinuates, back to Germany to be exterminated.
Of course, it still is a dumb-ass comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 1956 hrs
Hers doesn’t represent the views of all or most journalists.
No, but I can certainly note that they often (too often) share her attitude in what they write and the spin they put on it. I stand by what I said… check someones citizenship status and you are Hitler… back up the rocket slinging thugs of Hamas, and you are a peace activist. Toss a firebomb at the IDF, or stab an Israeli soldier and you are heroically defending innocents… fire back in self defense and you are an Israeli war criminal. Much of the lame stream media overlooked, muted, or ignored the fact that the peaceniks drew first blood. The Israelis were deemed to be in the wrong… in a very Sgt Crowleyesque fashion.
She’s a woman who made a despicable statement and she deserves whatever criticism she gets because of it.
I am guessing that little or nothing is done to Helen.
What ticks me off about the picture of her and Obama on the top of Drudge is that it attempts to make her nasty comments rub off on him.
While her comments are not his, Barack has certainly been the “Hammer of the Israelis” in his policies and comments. It’s even been reported now that we are in dialogue with Hamas. Disgusting. I can see why Helen figured that her vitriol would be acceptable under this administration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 2001 hrs
Further, it’s critically important to recognize that acknowledging the plight of Palestinians and questioning their fate during the creation of Israel does not equal antisemitism.
Trying to create a peaceful resolution for the Palestinians is a far cry from supporting the murderous thugs of Hamas and Hezbullah. If the Arab nations had not immediately attempted to exterminate Israel in 1948, perhaps the original accords offered by the UN would have worked. It’s too late for that now though… that ship has sailed. If you back a group whose intent is to kill people in an attempt to create peace, you are rather a stupid person.
Not a coincidence that the same people defending the anti-Semetic media are same fellow travelers sympathetic towards terrorists @ Gitmo & Islamists in Gaza.
dead on balls accurate, Smeety.
Not, as your headline insinuates, back to Germany to be exterminated.
To be exterminated? I think you might be misinformed about the modern Germans…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 2015 hrs
“At the same time, the idea that “the MSM” here in America is somehow anti-Israel is ludicrous.”
Well they’re condemning Israel for defending themselves and make no mention of Egypt’s involvement in the blockade. That’s what journalism has sank to in America today. You’re statement is ludicrous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2010 at 2218 hrs
Hey Scotty, care to hazard a guess as to how many rocket and mortar attacks Israel has endured so far this year?
60.
How would you feel if someone was bombarding your neighborhood with that kind of firepower?
Frankly the Israelis are showing remarkable restraint, meanwhile you show a remarkable lack of knowledge.
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Fred if you want to engage me in conversation one wonders why you’ve banned me from your web site. Puzzling.
Anyway, perhaps you’d like to point to something I wrote above as evidence of my “remarkable lack of knowledge.”
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1000 hrs
TerryN: You wrote, “Well they’re condemning Israel for defending themselves and make no mention of Egypt’s involvement in the blockade. That’s what journalism has sank to in America today. You’re statement is ludicrous.”
If Egypt’s involvement in the blockade wasn’t mentioned in the media, how do you know about it? Oh, because it WAS mentioned in the media. Like, everywhere. Some examples, since you don’t know how to Google:
Wall Street Journal: Both Israel and Egypt enacted a de facto blockade of Gaza after the Palestinian militant group Hamas took over the territory in 2007.
New York Times: After Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Israel — with Egypt’s help — imposed a blockade on many goods and most people going into and out of the territory.
AP: Egypt and Israel have maintained the blockade since Hamas took control of Gaza three years ago.I beg you, if you’re going to criticize the media, do some homework. Don’t just repeat blog posts and soundbites.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2010 at 1003 hrs
It was just annonced on the news that a local high school in Bethesda, MD has rescinded their invitation to Helen Thomas to speak at the commencemnt exercises.
While I have no basis as to whether she actually is “a horrible, horrible woman”, I applaud this decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2010 at 1027 hrs
Simple, Scott, because you lied. You proved yourself incapable of basic honesty.
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 1153 hrs
Fred, what did I write above to demonstrate my “remarkable lack of knowledge”?
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1207 hrs
Suggesting that the American people need to take a hard look at who they are supporting.
Or do you support the terrorists that have attacked Israel 60 times this year alone?
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 1402 hrs
So criticizing Israel even in the most general of ways makes me a “liar” and shows I have a “remarkable lack of knowledge” and that I “lack basic honesty.” Oh, plus I’m a terrorist supporter.
That pretty much it, Fred?
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1421 hrs
well, you are definitely a terrorist sympathizer…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2010 at 1450 hrs
No Scott, lying got you banned, you know that.
Your remarkable lack of knowledge is reflected in the point that you ignore the fact that Israel has been attacked 60 times so far this year and you still infer that American’s are supporting the wrong side.
I see your ability to completely distort reality still works exceedingly well.
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 1459 hrs
No Scott, lying got you banned, you know that.
Fred, before you go calling people liars, you should hand over the keys to your house to me. You know you lost your house to me on a bet. Even if you did delete that discussion later. It still happened. I know you deleted the discussion about Valerie Plame, wherein I demonstrated that you were wrong for the previous two years during which you called me a liar. You probably deleted the discussion in which you said that no Bush administration official ever—ever!—suggested that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction… until I provided a list of names and quotes. More recently there was the hilarious blog entry in which you seem to have reinvented the science of statistics in your effort to bash health care reform.
Anyway, what really got me banned from Fred’s hate-a-palooza was this:
“I think the reason you can’t find a genuine liberal to contribute here is that we’re all collectively horrified by this blog. It’s glib, cheap, unfair, hateful and intellectually dishonest. To be a liberal writer here would mean either playing by the same low rules, or else end up playing Colmes to your Hannity – a weak, ineffectual sidekick to a loud smirking bully. No thanks. This, I believe, is why we refuse. It’s certainly why I did.”
And that ain’t no lie.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1516 hrs
I don’t know what transpired between these two, but I do know (as does most of the WI blogosphere, I suspect) that Scott claiming to oppose intellectual dishonesty and “low rules” is darn funny.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 1755 hrs
One only needs to visit my recent blog entry on Bush to see what you presumably consider better behavior, Calvin—and the kind of treatment you received in return. So your condemnation is like praise to me.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1805 hrs
Funny, but the fact is, you know everything that’s preceded my current treatment of you over the past several years. You know I’m right, even if you’ll never admit it.
A word to the wise: if you didn’t lie and employ double standards with reckless abandon (see: global warming, sex ed, abortion, “expert opinion”), people would be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt in dust-ups like this one with Fred.
But you’ve made your bed, and now have to lie in it.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 1857 hrs
You are a funny man. Yes, every radical left winger thinks i’m the bad guy.
Love that tolerance and diversity always on display Scotty.
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 1915 hrs
Calvin you sound like a great guy!
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 1917 hrs
At least I don’t delete shit whenever someone comes along and proves me wrong.
You know I’m right, even if you’ll never admit it.
...if you didn’t lie and employ double standards
Since we’re on that subject…did you see Fred’s statistics lesson? It’s not even that he makes a grievous error in his attempt to show “media bias,” it’s that he clings to it tenaciously when people try to correct his obvious mistake. Frankly, I’m surprised the entry is still there. Fred has a habit of deleting these kind of things. Perhaps he still doesn’t know he’s been proven wrong, which is even hilariouser.
http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/09/4-52-thats-same-thing.html
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1918 hrs
Hey, here’s an oldie but a goodie. Remember the gay marriage ban thing here in Wisconsin? The one that banned not only gay marriage but also “a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”? Fred urged people to support the measure. One of his arguments:
If two gay peope wish to enter into a contractual relationship that somehow mimics marriage, fine. Just call it something other than marriage.
Think it over. The measure bans legal arrangements similar to marriage. Fred supports the ban, saying it’s fine by him if gay people want to enter into a legal arrangement similar to marriage.
If that’s confusing to you, fear not! Fred has anticipated your confusion and supplies—in bold!—an explanation:
If you are confused that is because the people in favor of gay marriage are putting out misleading information to trick you…
http://realdebatewisconsin.blogspot.com/2006/10/vote-yes.html
But you know me, always with the double-standard thing. Always lying. Always being intellectually dishonest. It’s a wonder that Fred will even speak to me!
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 1940 hrs
Thanks, Fred. Scott’s self-righteous, dishonest preening isn’t exactly persuasive upon first notice, but it’s all the more transparent when you know better based on experience. You’ll enjoy this one:http://rightcal.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/how-not-to-argue-abortion/
As for the statistics thing: the commenters have a point that the JSOnline survey is within the scope of standard polling practice. But it seems to me that it does go to show that, in general, polls’ significance shouldn’t be overstated. I wonder how these polls rank against JSOnline’s in Scott’s mind:
http://www.investors.com/newsandanalysis/article.aspx?id=506199
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.html
PS: Scott should also be called out for the stupid Hannity comparison. Sean Hannity is many things - unoriginal, overly-partisan, and even hypocritical - but if you’re at all familiar with the show, you’ll know a bully he ain’t. He treats vermin like Bob Beckel with kid gloves all the time. Yet another example of how little of his own thinking Scott does.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 1947 hrs
Actually, Calvin, I encourage people to not only read your post on my abortion views, I encourage them to get even more of what I’ve written on the subject. I’m not embarrassed by what I’m saying—which is probably why I don’t delete them after the fact.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=2347
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2003 hrs
You should be embarrassed by your abortion views, but for the record, the fact that you’re pro-choice isn’t what I’m drawing attention to - it’s the underhanded way you debate them, and that your supposedly-nuanced, science-based approach to determining when to give fetuses what consideration is completely empty.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2009 hrs
I don’t think it’s underhanded at all. Perhaps you just feel that way because it makes you uncomfortable.
Fred thinks you’re a “great guy,” Calvin. At the risk of disturbing your friendship at its very beginnings, what DO you think of Fred’s blog entries above? The statistics one, the gay marriage one? Surely someone with such a keen eye for double-standards and intellectual dishonesty such as yourself has an opinion.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2021 hrs
Yep Scott, and you Democrats rewarded Mike Tate for his dishonest campaign by making him party chair.
I’m done, I have better things to do than to waste time on the likes of you.
Posted by Fred on June 07, 2010 at 2031 hrs
Perhaps if we’d had your statistical prowess or legislative acumen we could have done better. Alas.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2033 hrs
I already demonstrated what a fraud you are, so your “uncomfortable” crack is pretty transparent as little more than window dressing. “I don’t think it’s underhanded at all” is no more than a restatement of your position; it’s not a defense of your position, or a refutation of mine.
I already mentioned the statistics post. As for the gay marriage one, congrats: the amendment did ban marriage-like unions under other names (though virtually everything else Fair Wisconsin said about it was a lie. They lied even more than you do!) You’re right there, Fred’s wrong. Happy now?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2038 hrs
You’ve demonstrated nothing—except that you passionately disagree with me and probably don’t think much of me as a person. Big surprise. As far as defending my position, I’ve written thousands of words in debate on the subject—often with you. You can say all kinds of things about me (and you do), but you can’t say I haven’t vigorously defended my position.
Your remarks about Fred’s statistics are pretty weak. He was wrong—dead, stinkin’ wrong. Demonstrably and embarrassingly wrong. Is it so hard to just say so?
You’re right there, Fred’s wrong. Happy now?
A little happier, yes. Thanks for asking.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2046 hrs
“I think the reason you can’t find a genuine liberal to contribute here is that we’re all collectively horrified by this blog. It’s glib, cheap, unfair, hateful and intellectually dishonest. To be a liberal writer here would mean either playing by the same low rules, or else end up playing Colmes to your Hannity – a weak, ineffectual sidekick to a loud smirking bully. No thanks. This, I believe, is why we refuse. It’s certainly why I did.”
No idea why you got banned for such light commentary. Funny though, as I was reading that, it reminded me of similar things that all the conservatives on your own blog told you before they left it, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2010 at 2053 hrs
“Demonstrated nothing”? Bull. If you can demonstrate that what I’ve written about your abortion conduct is wrong, then do it. Until then, I stand by my conclusion.
I get that you probably get a kick out of pulling this garbage with reckless abandon, and don’t take kindly to having your tactics challenged, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Enjoy your reputation, Scott. You’ve earned it.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2105 hrs
You’re like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail: You think you’re winning even after your arms are hacked off.
Whatever.
Hey, here’s a great example of just how unreasonable I can be. Health care debate at my place. 83 comments! I think it’s a good example of how I really try hard to make a real and honest discussion happen. Every single comment I made was a genuine effort to make a point and further the discussion. And when I was wrong, I admitted it. And when I stooped to a cheap shot, I apologized.
http://scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=2768#comments
Also, I’m surprised that SoL (aka TFG) hasn’t mocked me for trying to drum up traffic to my blog yet. Sure, I like visits—and comments even more. But it’s not like I’m making money off ads or anything. Click if you want, don’t if you don’t. I promise to keep self-referencing links to a minimum. It’s just that I seem to have become part of the topic of conversation at the moment…
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2125 hrs
You’re pretty good at making jokes and alluding to other things. Defending your record, not so much.
If you really were inclined to apologize when you’re in the wrong, you already would have done so for your egregious mischaracterizations of pro-lifer intentions, and you would have admitted that your “abortions-at-12-weeks” support was a violation of your own supposed standards.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2134 hrs
your egregious mischaracterizations of pro-lifer intentions
I think I’ve already said enough about that subject. You can’t accuse me of evasion. Thousands of words written by me exist on the subject already. If I’m wrong, I can’t see how. Of course I have made all the appropriate qualifications—not everyone fits into the category I describe—but my basic principle is as convincing to me today as when I first wrote it. I invite you to think carefully about why I might have this opinion—genuinely have it, not just use it as a weapon against you—before weakly trying to ‘debunk’ it.
your “abortions-at-12-weeks” support was
Was an example in a lengthy discussion about when abortions might be ok and when they might not. I’ve invited you many times to come up with your own ideas on the subject, but all I keep getting from you is a religious insistence that a two-celled blastocyst is deserving of full moral consideration and constitutional protections that the rest of us are—a proposal I find ludicrous on its face.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2139 hrs
Was an example in a lengthy discussion about when abortions might be ok and when they might not. I’ve invited you many times to come up with your own ideas on the subject, but all I keep getting from you is a religious insistence that a two-celled blastocyst is deserving of full moral consideration and constitutional protections that the rest of us are—a proposal I find ludicrous on its face.
... and yet you are not taken seriously. Imagine that…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2010 at 2146 hrs
I think I’ve already said enough about that subject.
Except for the part where you’re supposed to provide evidence.
I invite you to think carefully about why I might have this opinion—genuinely have it, not just use it as a weapon against you—before weakly trying to ‘debunk’ it.
When you first deployed this stuff, I took your intentions at face value, despite the arrogance & absurdity of what you were saying. But as I and others refuted what you said - repeatedly - and you kept insisting it was both true & compelling without offering supporting reasons to believe it was either, I concluded your sincerity simply wasn’t plausible any more (especially viewed in light of your ever-shifting standards as to what constitutes a credible source and what doesn’t when it comes to global warming & such).
Was an example in a lengthy discussion about when abortions might be ok and when they might not.
Yes - an example YOU proposed, and which violated YOUR stated standards. That was my point - if you don’t even hold yourself to your own standards, why should anyone either respect you, or discuss anything with you?
a proposal I find ludicrous on its face.
The way I remember it, religion was hardly the only thing I brought to the table, but be that as it may. You don’t think much of my position? Fine. But again, that’s pretty much all you said then, too, and saying you find something “ludicrous on its face” is - for the last time - nothing more than a restatement of your opinion. In no way is it a defense or support of your position.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2153 hrs
Man, this has gotten really off topic. My apologies to anyone who would rather complain about Helen Thomas.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2155 hrs
Calvin, debate me anywhere, anytime. On my blog or this one or on some other one. I enjoy it.
As far as restatement of my opinion goes, yeah: I don’t think people wanting to read about Helen Thomas want another 1000 words on my abortion views in this thread.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2156 hrs
Srsly. My apologies as well.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2157 hrs
If you conjure up any more wild theories about why pro-lifers “really” think the way we do, or if you want to either defend or reconsider your stated belief that an innocent human being with a heartbeat, a fully-formed brain, & the capacity to feel pain “can be terminated for any reason at all,” be my guest.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on June 07, 2010 at 2202 hrs
Sure. As soon as you a) explain what a “fully-formed brain” is and when it is developed, and b) explain why a just-fertilized human egg is the moral and legal equivalent of you and me.
Posted by scott on June 07, 2010 at 2210 hrs
Was never a big Helen fan, but it’s likely that she has early dementia. There are types which affect judgment but not cognition.
It’s good that she has retired. We should leave her alone.
Also agree with Wendy, RS, and Bill analyses.Posted by Charlie Hillman on June 07, 2010 at 2317 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134021
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 12:07 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 12:29 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).