Sarah Palin's Grin
I cannot keep it in any longer.
I am so pissed off at Sara Palin, Rush Limburger, Glenn Dick and the rest of the right wing nut balls out there who think that the venom they spout on a daily basis cannot set off some deranged person.
Now, before you jump all over me, let me say up front that I cannot prove that this guy in Arizona (whose name I will not reprint for fear of giving him the attention that he is looking for) was inspired by something on Palin’s website or by a particular incendiary comment by a talk show host. I get that piece. However, don’t tell me that a mentally unbalanced person does not slowly absorb all of the hateful, personal crap that is being spread out there. I am not a psychologist but I am so sick and tired of the political right poo-pooing the “power” that they have in creating such a negative climate in this country.
What really got my attention was how Sara Palin’s crew immediately took down
Glen Back Wants You to Hate
that part of her website that had the targets on the congressional districts, including Congresswoman Gifford’s. If they think it had no effect on anyone, if they felt it had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting, then why did they take it down? Huh? Huh? Geez, I just want to take that woman in my two arthritic hands and shake her head back and forth and try to knock that shit-eating grin off of her face. Okay, okay, I know I’m doing the same thing that I just accused them of doing, but cut me a little slack here.
The reason why I am so sensitive about this issue is that I’ve seen this pattern before. I’ve seen Bill O’Reilly night after night refer to my friend, Doctor George Tiller, as “Tiller the Killer.” Ha, ha, ha, very funny, Bill. Hey, look! My ratings went up! Now let’s charge our advertisers more money and I’ll get my cut.
But then, as we all know, after his (and other’s) incessant harassment of Doctor Tiller, some deranged psycho (whose name I also will not mention) grabbed a gun and killed Doctor Tiller in his church. Again, I cannot prove that there is a connection to the assassin and Bill O’Reilly’s rants but the murderer had clearly been exposed to all of the hatred and vile that was being spread by O’Reilly and others. What they don’t understand is that hatred has legs, that when you start peddling it you never know whose mind it will reach.
Bill O'Reilly
Indeed, I remember Paul Hill, the murderer of Doctor Baird Britton, once told me that a number of his colleagues in the pro-life movement were “harassing” him, saying things like “Well, if you suggest that it’s okay to kill a doctor, then why haven’t you done it?” I can’t prove that that pressure got to Paul, but you can connect the dots. The point is words can have an effect on people.
So, are you against abortion? Fine, just explain to me why and vote for your candidate and, as much as I don’t like it, go out and stand in front of an abortion clinic if you are in need of some attention. But when you start spewing vile, when you start getting personal, when you start putting names of doctors on a website with x’s across their picture, when you call someone a “murderer” or a “baby killer,” don’t express shock when someone who heard your words goes out and takes action. Don’t give me your crap about how sorry you are, how you do not condone violence, how you are praying for the family of the slain doctor.
You can’t spread hate and not expect someone to respond.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 12, 2011 at 12:58 pm
This is the part that got to me, Pat: “when you call someone a ‘murderer’ or a ‘baby killer,’ don’t express shock when someone who heard your words goes out and takes action.”
Because that’s what I do. I don’t call him a murderer — legally he’s not and morally God knows. But he is a killer, isn’t he? He does kill what I call a baby and what Chuckles calls a humanoid, doesn’t he? And I suppose someone with more courage than I have might take action. That wouldn’t shock me.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 7:42 am
But, John, be totally honest with me here. You hang out at a doctor’s house. Let’s say that someone on your side joins you and you see him and start calling him a “baby killer” or whatever. You demonize him. Then, the other guy, who was mentally ill to begin with (and you may not have known that) kills this doctor. Are you telling me that you would not feel any remorse for the death of that real, live person?
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 9:57 am
I know from experience I would not feel any remorse because I did not feel any remorse when the other baby killers and their helpers were killed. Now that might mean it’s because I did not know them. When I get to know someone, everything changes. For example, I got to know Mary Blanks a little and if someone had killed her, I’d have felt bad. I know Jennifer Boulanger slightly better and if someone killed her, I’d feel worse. And I know Kate Ranieri, Sharon Davis, Bill Bekenhuis even better than that, and if someone killed any of them, I’d be crushed. You’re not the only one going around in circles.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:30 am
Thanks for your candor, John. Then, doesn’t it concern you that your constant presence at Jen’s house might set off someone else?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:46 am
I don’t want to think about that.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 12:24 am
John, don’t you think that this is something you should take into consideratiin when you’re protesting especially when it’s done outside someone’s personal residence?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
do you take your grandchildren with you to ms. boulanger’s house?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:46 am
My daughter and son-in-law won’t let me.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:04 am
yet her neighbors also don’t want their children and grandchildren exposed to that.
those children may not be your grandchildren, but they are SOMEBODY’S grandchildren.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 12:27 pm
I find it curious that so-called “pro-lifers” cannot reason from the general to the particular, but are limited, as in the example given, to caring for real human life based only on personal experience.
I don’t think this is a psychological problem, and it might not be a sign of low intelligence, but there has to be some explanation of why a need to consider human suffering (in conducting our own lives) as understood by most of us is non-existent for them.
Next, the “huh?”
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Huh? (just kidding) But here’s the point Chuckles: what you — “most of us” — understand, we deny. You understand that when you are very young, your mother may kill you. We deny that.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Well, if a mother KILL a CHILD, and i am talking about a REAL CHILD not your FACTIOUS CHILD she will be arrested and whatever comes from it. But you John only talks about this imaginary child of yours that is in the womb still. There is no child in the womb up to 12 weeks and PERIOD. I know you can’t be reasonable… I know age is a serious thing that block people from seeing clearly! Oh well!
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Here we have some more names for someone before she’s born. Are you listening, Pat? “unreal child,” “factious child,” “imaginary child,” and “no child”
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:31 am
But, Sonia, that means there is a “child” after twelve weeks and abortions are performed much later than that…
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:32 am
And yes, John, I hear ya. This is where the pro-choice groups stumble…We gotta come up with a name for that friggin thing that we’re aborting…
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:39 am
Pat, i never hided my opinion saying that i am TOTALLY for abortion… I have my “IF’s” about this subject, and yes, i think there is something there that is alive, not a child yet, but something more than cells. But that is ME right! I don’t try to tell people they are killing anybody! What goes for me doesn’t have to go for you or anybody else. IF somebody do a late term abortion i prefer to believe that is for reasonable reasons beyond my imagination or medical reasons! Different than John, i won’t go in front of anybodies house with a banner stating that a killer lives there. Again i like to believe otherwise, not because i want to be blind of what people are doing but because if i am to let this interfere in the way i see people i will loose the last credibility i have in GOD!
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:43 pm
before anyone calls someone else a babykiller, they need to ask if they pay taxes.
if they pay taxes in the us, their taxes, after the mexico city policy / global gag rule was rescinced, as well as grants to organizations like PP, pay for abortions.
they also need to ask themselves if they shop at wal-mart, target, or any grocery store that dispenses hormonal birth control, because based upon their definition of conception, they are also financially supporting vert early abortions.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 5:19 am
Absolutely right, Rog. It’s called “material cooperation” with evil. The Church allows it, but in that sense, here in the USA, we are all baby killers. And it’s the main reason the fifteen or so jailed prolifers are my heroes.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:33 am
the point is that unless you don’t pay taxes and don’t participate in any way, shape or form with above mentioned entities, it is hypocritical to refer to someone else as a “babykiller”.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:50 am
Right, I’m a hypocrite too.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:07 am
yes, i know, but you should be just as verbal about that in public as you are about the perceived flaws of someone else.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“Anonymous” above is me.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 2:50 pm
John, it doesn’t matter how it is called the fetus. What really matters is the fact that people are FANATICS and this is what happens when words are spread without proper thinking.
So just imagine, and PLEASE whoever reads this i am not telling you to do anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because you are kind of, sort of, a little bit of annoying and you know that… So let’s say that in one of my posts, i tell you that you should disappear, (i am not going to use any words that can drive some stupid to the edge here) and a less smart person decides that she/he will take that into consideration and make you disappear, not as a magician, but will do it. It depends how you put the words, people understand the way they want to. So for that i will say that Sarah Palin should be accounted as a killer as well…
I didn’t see this map that Pat refer to, and also my daughter told me about it yesterday, but if she had that on her web page and now is not there anymore, well… i can think whatever i want right!
It is hard for me to get your point John when you say you are a catholic, GOD’s words follower because you say things like above, and i quote:
“And I suppose someone with more courage than I have might take action. That wouldn’t shock me.”
This is not very catholic for me because if i recall properly, GOD said something like this:
“Throw the first stone whoever never committed a sin…” i am not a bible expert, and i am translating from portuguese to english that phrase and too lazy right now to go online to look for the right words…
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Sonia, save your breath. You are trying to reason with an aborticentric. There is nothing more important to him than to be “right” on this issue. The more angry you get, the more you will attack him. The more you do that, the more he will feel persecuted. The more persecuted he feels, the more he feels that his faith is strong and will earn him Heaven. Don’t feed into his self-help program.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Hate speech is real, and people should be held accountable when they are on massive media outlets like FOX.
Incredible, the FCC fines a company for an explicative, but does nothing about hate speech.
Sonia you are right about the opinion of anti abortion people and how they suggest illegal violence is OK – they are wrong, supporting illegal violence is not OK.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 7:47 am
You make an excellent point, Remira (and welcome!). If you say “shit” on a radio interview that radio station can be fined. But if O’Reilly spends hours upon hours demonizing a doctor with the thought of setting someone else off, then that’s okay? Mind you, I am incredibly liberal when it comes to free speech but I think if speech is used to put someone else in a dangerous situation then I may draw the line. On the other hand, where exactly do you draw that line? I dont think we can legislate this matter – we need to PRAY that people become more civil but I think that God would not help us out on that one…
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 9:59 am
What about legal violence, Remira?
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Like Capital Punishment?
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Like a soldier shooting someone in war?
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I would not call those violence. I’d call them the legitimate use of force. What I was referring to is pulling the arms and legs off young people. That’s violence.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:13 pm
PLEASE JOHN……..
Where a cell in formation has arms and legs!!!!!!!!!
GEEZ… unless you are so brain washed i can’t believe you really think that those cells has that… It is ridiculous…
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Look up “autoclave supervisor.”
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:34 am
Arms and legs at 7 weeks????
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:51 am
yes
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:47 am
IF you squooonch up yer eyes really, really hard, you can see ’em. You can also hear a little voice saying, “Are we almost there yet? I’ve been stuck in here forever!” the proper response to that is, “Shut up, or I’ll give you something to REALLY whine about!”
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
how is the death penalty a legitimate use of force?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Good question, Rog. I had just convinced myself it was when the Pope said it wasn’t, at least in the First World where I live. So I had to change my mind.
LikeLike
January 12, 2011 at 8:31 pm
You are absolutely right, of course, and this is something abortion providers have dealt with and understood for years. Freedome of speech is one thing, but you can’t yell fire in a movie theater. Same thing. If you use insightful language, eventually some wack job is going to act on it.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 7:50 am
You’re right, Jennifer. As I said above, there are limits on speech but I struggle in cases like O’Reilly screaming about Tiller. I just dont know what the Congress could do about drawing that line (e.g., can O’Reilly say “Tiller the Killer” once a night? Five times a night?). I mean, think about trying to craft that law. It’s like the Nuremberg Files. It’s a disgusting website, but as I have written in the past, I have to support their right to put names of doctors on the site. But they also have to know that it might set someone off. Geez Louise, I’m going around in a circle here…
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:06 am
i agree.
with rights, come responsibility.
spewing vitriol that will incite violence is irresponsible.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Pat, hate speech makes money for broadcasters. If you want to reduce it, you need a Fairness Doctrine– for every hour of O’Reilly on the air, the station or network has to have one hour of Mr. Rogers, so to speak. One dweeb trying to preach peace and love for fifteen minutes will cause tens of thousands to switch to another channel. No broadcast (and certainly no advertiser!) is going to let that happen.
So the word will filter down from HQ: “We will not allow these words and these sentiments to be uttered; if you want to utter them, start your own network.”
This was very effective in the 70’s, when the FCC ruled that the public had a right to hear the other side of smoking– the anti-smoking ads were so effective that the tobacco companies voluntarily ended TV advertising.
Of course, the present administration from Day One said reinstating the Fairness Doctrine was off the table. The mortmain of Wall Street, so to speak….
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:37 am
You’re right, Charles. It all comes down to $$$$$$$. I’m sure O’Reilly loves it when Obama mentions his name or someone publicly burns his book. It’s not about disseminating news or having rational conversations anymore, it’s about $$$$
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 6:35 am
Four score and seven minutes ago, I read a sweet arielct. Lol thanks
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Funny to read such a thing saying that hate speeches makes money for broadcasters… how short is the memory of people!
We don’t even have to go too far in history to give examples of what “hate” makes out of it… 9 – 11
Did everybody already forgot what happen that day?
The pain that those families went thru!
How that can make money for broadcasters!?
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Sonia, we humans have been fascinated by gore for the history of our species. Even the most pacific of us is likely to slow down to rubberneck an accident scene.
Suince I didn’t see the 9/11 stuff as it happened, I don’t know if there were commercial breaks. There weren’t for the three days of coverage of the Kennedy assassination and funeral, which meant a lot of money lost TV follows the rest of the media with the maxim, “If it bleeds, lt leads.” They have to hold you through the commercial (hoping you’ll fall under the influence of the ad), so news programs will lead into the ad with a hook designed to make you fearful, such as “Coming up next: Killer escalators, after the break.” The next time you watch the news, check it out!
Follwoing 9/11m, there was a forest of scare ads– rent “Farenheit 9/11” to see how thoroughly schnookered the TV viewing public was, and to what lengths news shows, security apparatus manufacturers and the White House went to make us pliable. And please, please, let me know when you’ve watched it. I would really appreciate knowing.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:39 am
I will admit that I have watched the films of that second plane going into the tower many, many, many times. I have seen the Zapruder film many, many times. I dont think I’m sick but there is indeed something “fascinating” about it that I can’t shake.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:44 am
I have to admit that i CAN’T watch Schindler List yet for example… I did watch some of the movies about the 9/11 and when i start to get anxious i just turn out the TV/DVD… i just can’t!
I know that by renting i was already admitting to give some money for this industry, but that is the human curious side i think. Can’t explain!
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm
I am not saying that Charles is wrong, actually he is totally right, but i refuse to believe that this is what it is and nothing can be done to change it!
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Actually, Sonia, so-called “pro-lifers” can be changed almost overnight, in a highly unorthodox but effective way: Give each of them to raise to adulthood just one more child than they can handle.
–charles/chuckles
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I would rather have been aborted while an incognate proto-human than grow up to wreak revenge on the world for what my parents did to me: We can’t afford to have more Bundys or Dahmers in this world. But the so-called “pro-lifers” have to invest fetal life with fully human qualities and focus on abortion.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 7:39 am
An “incognate proto-human” as you were then or an “incomprehensible pseudo-human” as you are now, Chuckles. When you play the name game, it can be turned right back on you.
Also, is this your latest, incognate proto-human? Have you ditched “unreal child” and “humanoid”?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:41 am
Yikes, Charles, where did you come up with that one? It’s a great bumper sticker for the pro-choicers: “After all, we’re only aborting incognate proto humans!”
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 10:59 am
John are you talking about yourself??? because you being the way you are the word incomprehensible fits you perfectly!
🙂
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:23 am
What don’t you understand?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm
um… er…
i think she was saying that it is you who doesn’t understand what is being said.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 11:44 pm
i have thought that bill oreilly held a partial moral responsibility for the death of dr tiller for quite a while.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 5:25 am
Sure, see above, material cooperation. We, the non-incarcerated, are all responsible for these killings. My guess is that Bill is almost as responsible as you, Rog. (And a lot less responsible than I, for that matter.)
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:15 am
chow chow chow
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:42 am
I think O’Reilly is “more” responsible than Rogie but I just dont know how and where you draw the line. It’s an impossible thing to legislate or regulate, I think…
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:44 pm
maybe it is possible to legislate and regulate, maybe not.
free speech is a liberty that we must cherish, but by the same token, we must be held accountable for what we say in the same degree of the reaction to a reasonable level.
for example, i have been accused of being misogynist because i am pro-life, and informed that being a pro-life man in and of itself is misogyny.
however, the people who say this are generally women whose dedication to their cause consists soley of sitting on their asses online spewing venom.
so i can safely come to the conclusion that they are simply misandrists and are projecting because the choicers who actually have done anything for their cause, are tolerant to opposing views and are capable of civil dialogue.
no big deal there. i simply think poorly of the misandrists.
however, take don imus’ “nappy headed ho” comment several years back.
he had every right to say what he did, but i as a consumer had the right to inform his sponsors that i would be boycotting their products and urging others to do the same.
he was dropped, but his right to free speech was not violated, and i was still able to exercise my rights to spend my money as i see fit, and all was right in the world.
people can be held accountable without violating their right to free speech.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 7:44 am
I love this quote by Sonia about “Dunkle” and I just had to repeat it!!!
“Because you are kind of, sort of, a little bit of annoying and you know that… ”
I do have to say that it took Sarah Palin along time to respond..then she responded with some more “hate speech”…did she know that?? If she did …that’s sad…if she did not then it is even sadder!!! Which ever it is…she should NEVER be the President of the United States of America!!! She would NEVER be a uniter…
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
My wish is that the Republicans nominate Palin. That would guarantee an Obama re-election. And I am not convinced that she knew what that phrase Blood Libel meant. And I will admit it right now that I had never heard of it myself!
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
do you think that president obama will automatically get the democratic nomination?
i know a lot of democrats are pretty unhappy with him because they feel like he is too willing to compromise with the republicans.
there is always a possibility that someone else will get the nomination, isn’t there?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:38 am
No; Democrats are too tolerant of their incumbents. He’ll lose the election if the economy doesn’t recover a lot more, and the Republicans will do what they can to keep that from happening.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:50 pm
orale, chucckles.
that doesn’t sound good to me.
it just seems like that is saying that dems are more interested in partisan politics than the best interests of the us.
i see so many repubs just waiting for obama to boff something up. some of them actually want him to boff up at the expense of the country.
don’t get me wrong, i WANT president obama to do a good job and be a good president, but if there is a better choice, shouldn’t that choice be considered?
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 11:17 am
I agree with Charles, the Dems will nominate Obama and it’s all up to the economy..
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 6:30 am
i don’t understand estado unidense politics.
it just seems like a bunch of angry people arguing instead of talking.
i just want him to be a good president.
he was handed such a mess to clean up, and the economy was headed downhill when he took office.
i don’t think he should be blamed for something that isn’t his fault, but i also think if someone else can do a better job at anything, then let them do so.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 9:06 am
That’s true Pat…I never had either…But in a statement as important as that one {for her} I would have said Hmmm “What does that mean?” Before I put that statement out!!! My point exactly…she can’t rely on others to make her statements without knowing what it means!!!
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:00 am
I don’t love that quote, LDM. I like it. Well maybe I kinda love it. It is all about me, right?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 9:14 am
jajajajaja
sonia is a very tactful soul, isn’t she?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:02 am
Thanks Lorraine!!! I gave that line a deep thought because different than John i don’t like calling people names or accusing!!! I am a believer and even John deserves to have some credibility, maybe he is just like the bonsai tree i mention, he was raised not to think by himself and only to follow what other people say or the old book that is thousands of years old and people still wants to follow what is in there… oh well!!!!
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:01 am
Of course, words are important, have impact, make a difference. So when agitators like members of the Tea Party, media right-wingers like Beck, Palin & O’Reilly, and ordinary, curb-sucking, anti-abortion fanatics like Flip Benham, John Dunkle, Frank Pavone and Dan Holman, use hateful and bigoted rhetoric everyday, year in, year out, it should be no shock that some deranged person will act out. Their violent rhetoric counts more than arguments, their hate stronger than ideas. Kate
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:45 am
And I love how some of them are “men of God” but their words are so full of hate…WWJD?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 1:12 pm
All of the protesters at the abortion clinic claim to be religiously grounded but it’s a hoax. Anyone who claimed inspiration from Jesus or God or some other deity, would never act in such heinous behaviors like John and his Saturday morning morons, Gerry and Joe.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 11:52 am
“Jesus or God”! Jesus is God.
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 6:34 am
not everybody is christian, muchless trinitarian.
for that matter, not everyone at the vigils i go to even believe in god, but they have an obvious spiritual inspiration and hence don’t behave like the protesters at awc do.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 9:37 am
Jesus IS God? I thought he was tghe SON of God? What am i missing here???
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 10:04 am
Jesus has lots of names: the Messiah, the Savior, the Son of Man, The Redeemer, et al., but he is God. He, the Father, and the Holy spirit are three Persons in one God.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 1:22 pm
tnsdh, by now you probably realize that some of the Catholics who post here do not believe in the Trinity and therefore cannot imagine that Jesus is separate from God, even though God, so they will challenge your statement, “Jesus or God,” because of an error of faith rather than accept it for the religious consistency it acknowledges.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 8:57 am
“curb sucking” — who but Kate We can’t lose her, Pat.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:35 am
Responses to Rog in #1: I’d take the kids with me if I were allowed. When I show the picture of the decapitated baby, people say, “Kids see that.” I say, “It’s for the kids.” I want them to ask dad, “Who pulled that baby’s head off?” I tell the parents, “We are a lost and brain-washed generation. The kids still see clearly. They will eventually protect young people legally.”
And the hypocrisy admonition: “I thought I’d just said that!”
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 12:27 pm
but if you force those images on other people’s grandchildren, why not force them on your own as well?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I do. Causes quite a stir.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 4:51 pm
And when he’s in his coffin and his granchildren are viewing the body, they’ll remember what an ******* he was.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Why did you omit “loving Granddaddy”?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:43 am
Pat in #10: My own neologism, ready to be shot down in a jiffy by any semanticist.
Note if you will the so-called “pro-lifer’s” response is once again to evade actually discussing the issue. Typical Catholic school teacher, perhaps. Oops, going ad hominem myself, but it is so wearing to have to repeat the same points over and over and over again that it’s easy to lose one’s temper.
And, despite your humor, Pat, unless they are taken care of after they are born, they will continue to remain sub-human for the rest of their short and sorry life.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:48 am
John, i see that beyond this figure of a macho man lives a grandfather. So from one grandparent to another, your grandkids are boys or girls?
If boys = how it is the education inside the household about “if you get a girl pregnant…”
If girls = how is the education inside the household about “as a woman, when you start having sex…”
You know this kind of education about REAL life… how that is handled?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 1:10 pm
#1. both, nine girls and six boys
#2. If you get a girl pregnant, you must never kill the baby.
#3. You start having sex after you are married.
#4. I don’t understand this question.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:59 pm
You don’t understand because you don’t want to! Right! Congrats on all the grandkids! I want to make it clear that i didn’t, in any moment, asked about your grandkids to make it personal on you, so please don’t take this in a offensive way! So, that being said i think you should re-think the way you guys are raising this kids!!!
What about instead being hypocritical on your answer (read #2 & 3 answers) and that goes to any parent or grand parent…
REALITY – Boys and girls WILL have sex as soon as they discover puberty. FACT!
If family member instead being paranoid about this FACT, talk to their kids and teens, the probability of them listening and actually not having sex too young is higher than if forbidden – remember forbidden is ALWAYS better.
In your answer John, here is why i called you hypocritical, #2 is for the boy, i presume, meaning that boys can have sex… and if a pregnancy happen don’t kill the “baby” but doesn’t say anything about for example “you will be hold responsible for your actions”
#3 – Do not have sex before you are married…
John, please don’t move to the la la land… i am not sure they have internet connection over there and we will miss having your posts here, even when is nonsense…
#4 You did understood the question, i know you did, you are more smart than what you let us know because it is convenient to you!!!
And there is where the EDUCATION that i always mention comes to make the difference. Have a great weekend guys!
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 5:34 am
Sonia, like so many other killers’ helpers on this blog, you have trouble saying what you mean. And then when I ask for clarification, you get testy: “You did understand the question. I know you did.” So, where I have more room down below, let me frame the questions for you, and respond to them.
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 6:37 am
i had no problem understanding what she meant, and i don’t see her as having been testy in replying to your asshattery.
she is actually quite tactful towards you.
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“tactful”! That’s what I am towards you, Rog. She was testy.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 11:36 am
I agree with Rog
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 10:02 am
I don’t have a problem saying what i think, never did! If you weren’t so blind you would read what i said thousands of times… You in the other hand never answer ONE SINGLE question with the truth.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Uh, uh, Sonia, Chuckles said something true on November 14.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Clearly, his claim to caring for real children is limited to the default position of being a grandfather. It’s clearly more exciting to be a hero for fetal life than to take on a needy human being.
I like that part about “you must never kill the baby.” Abandon it, yes; inflict cruelty on it, yes; set it up for a wasted life, yes. And it’s even okay to laugh while you’re doing it. But never, ever kill it! His default position for fatherhood.
I love this guy! He is to care for human life what Ted Bundy was to young blonde females.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:52 am
And by the way, Pat: Dunkle say he doesn’t want to think about whether his actions would incite someone to commit a real murder, but he’s already admitted he’s a coward, which indicates he would consider them to be brave, AND he admires the ones who have killed. I think he once again is evading deliberately. Hypocrisy? No, just part of his dysfunctional self-help program as he tries to earn an imagined immortality.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Could someone translate this.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 11:39 am
Don’t be ridiculous.
That was easy to understand John..
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Deliberate obtuseness is part of his armor against acknowledging reality.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 4:43 pm
not you
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 11:31 am
For someone who was a teacher, his inability to comprehend a sentence written at a tenth-grade level indicates either serious mental deterioration or a need to play dumb in order to avoid confronting unpleasant and threatening truths.
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:53 am
I love the pic of Glen Back wanting you to hate, that is so true.
To me he is a crazy person with to much air time and we are ripping what he is sowing.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 5:45 am
If boys = how it is the education inside the household about “if you get a girl pregnant…”
If girls = how is the education inside the household about “as a woman, when you start having sex…”
You know this kind of education about REAL life… how that is handled?
#1 In your family if the topic of out-of-wedlock pregnancy comes up, how do you handle it?. I say have the baby and keep her.
#2 If the topic of fornication arises, how do you handle that? I say don’t engage in it. It’s evil.
#3 What about “real life”? If by “real life” you mean engaging in activities that are smarmy, unclean, addictive, arising out of weakness, revolting, and/or self-defeating, I say avoid them at all costs.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 11:33 am
Are you okay? Those first three sentences are baffling.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 11:46 am
Right. I had to translate them. Sonia wrote them. That’s what I’m going to do from now on with your incomprehensible stuff too, Chuckles. I tried to get others to translate you but you’re the only one who volunteered, and your translations go from the incomprehensible to the vindictive.
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 11:45 am
Dunkle,
Why don’t you follow your own #3?
LikeLike
January 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Please explain, and don’t get testy.
LikeLike
January 15, 2011 at 10:25 pm
I am so sorry John, i wasn’t aware that you were a “evil” fruit… I really sorry for that and i sorry even more for finding out you don’t have sex anymore… It might be “hard” to have everything to have sex and not being able to! What a shame…
Anyways… i apologize it might be really difficult to be in your situation.
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 6:18 am
You might be a grandmother, Sonia, but mentally you’re still an adolescent.
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 6:39 am
at your age, i imagine most people seem adolescent.
did you get a chance to say hello to moses at your high school reunion?
does he still look like charlton heston?
LikeLike
January 16, 2011 at 9:25 am
Those double-entendres do appeal to you, don’t they, Rog.
LikeLike