Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Priceless!

By Greg L | 10 March 2009 | National Politics, Humor & Satire | 67 Comments

Thanks to a loyal BVBL reader for sending this along!



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

67 Comments

  1. Anonymous said on 10 Mar 2009 at 11:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Urkel lied, the economy died!

  2. BattleCat said on 11 Mar 2009 at 5:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Off Topic, but another good joke:

    Octo-Mom breakfast:

    14 Eggs
    No Sausage
    Someone else pays.

  3. Anonymous said on 11 Mar 2009 at 8:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Great image! I just didn’t realize George Bush was so dark skinned!

  4. Sara said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:01 am:
    Flag comment

    There is a reason why GOP candidates are losing everywhere–cheap (sophomoric) shots like this. The American people have been fooled once–don’t expect them to be fooled again.

  5. Advocator said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Agree wholeheartedly, Sara. The GOP has either got to drop the frat boy mentality or be content to be relegated to irrelevant status. It’s got no one to blame but itself.

  6. BattleCat said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous and Sara,

    You two are out of your minds. Sara, cheap shots? Like with Palin and Bush? The liberals haven’t seen one 64th of what they need to see with Obonzo. Libs taught us how to be nasty over the last year, and we know Republicans are losing because they refuse to stand on their values and act too much like Democrats. I’ve never seen anyone so 100% completely backwards as what you posted, Sara. You libs haven’t seen anything yet.

  7. Hmmm... said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:13 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/61239/saturday-night-live-the-rock-obama

  8. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Sara, the Repubs lost because they advocated for “liberal” things. Period.

  9. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:40 am:
    Flag comment

    Sara, since you seem to be so enlightened…can you jusftify why illegal immigrants (who are involved in ID theft, fraud, marriage scams, stealing benefits, stealing jobs, etc.) should be given amnesty (aka pathway to citizenship), while a legal citizen who committed such crimes would be thrown in jail? I would love to hear your position on this most important matter.

  10. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 11 Mar 2009 at 9:46 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_030909_woodburn_toddler_killed_.1de69366.html
    “Witness: Driver who killed toddler made call before leaving”

    Now this is a “real” sob story (not one of those phony liberal ones). Sara, any comments on this?

  11. Anonymous said on 11 Mar 2009 at 11:04 am:
    Flag comment

    Looks like Sara will be known now as “silent” Sara.

  12. Prester John said on 11 Mar 2009 at 11:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Far be it from me not to criticize the Annointed One or the Democrats, but the Republicans had the opportunity of a lifetime after the 2004 election and blew it big time. That’s not to deny of course that this has been building since the mid-60s or even since the New Deal.

    The only difference between the two is that the Dems are driving us full speed into disaster while the GOP was merely driving us at 3/4’s speed into disaster.

    With very, very few exceptions, neither party has any elected officials that are very much concerned about other than (in no particular order) the next election (I know, it’s been like that for 200 years or so), acquiring more power to tell us how to live our lives, increasing their own personal wealth, and increasing the personal wealth of their families and their political “partners”.

    A pretty sad state of affairs.

    “The truth is treason in the empire of lies”.

    www.campaignforliberty.com

  13. Mark said on 11 Mar 2009 at 12:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Look, Republicans blew it with “Dubya”. He glad-handed the Southern Hemisphere and basically gave America away to anyone who wanted to have our money. George was the most Non-Republican Republican I have EVER seen. Great when it came to battling Terrorism, a little inflexible,and surrounded by some real whack jobs.

    Then we had McCain, who spoke one side out of his mouth for Illegals when he spoke to them than when he spoke to us. Also, let’s not forget his BIG time back pedaling when he wanted to grant them amnesty before he ran for election.

    Nope, we couldn’t fit a square peg into a hole this election cycle and we got hammered for it.

    I still think that it’s a shame that the middle ground electorate wanted to try someone so new that there was hardly anything to go on. I guess the majority of people really and truly don’t realize that you are the sum of the 5 people you most hang around with. Let’s see, Wright, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, oh and of course, his wife. Makes him a nut job in my book.

    I only hope and pray that our country isn’t too far in the dumps when the next election comes around and the Republicans can get someone with a tad bit more charisma and integrity to Republican principles. Kinda like the Tide detergent, except it’s Republicans! New and improved! Gets the stains out. Believe me, there will be plenty of stains to get out too.

    IMHO

  14. Advocator said on 11 Mar 2009 at 12:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    You’re right on the mark, Mark.

    Socrates said there are two “mentalities” of the populace that every orator must address. One is reason, the other is emotion. Republicans have ignored “reason” for too long. Liberals cannot stay on the same playing field as long as Republicans have a conservative agenda, are knowledgeable of it, and can explain it. They’re reduced to name-calling, twisted semantics, and dirty tricks when faced with an effective proponent of Conservatism. Where are they?

  15. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 11 Mar 2009 at 12:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree with Mark and Advocator. Where is Sara?

  16. Anonymous said on 11 Mar 2009 at 1:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator: Drop the frat boy mentality? Are you kidding? These are the people who have anointed Rush Limbaugh–a prescription drug abuser who flunked out of college and dodged the draft with a medical deferment due to a glorified butt pimple, and whose only non-pundit work experience has been as a sportscaster–as their intellectual leader. This is a guy who misquoted the Constitution at the recent CPAC meeting, rattling off a sentence from the Declaration of Independence (and still flubbing a few words) as part of the Preamble. And nobody caught it–they actually applauded! These aren’t smart people. Frat boys would be a step UP.

    These folks positively REVEL in anti-intellectualism. Watching them crash and burn, and then seeing the individual pieces crash and burn some more has been the most entertaining political show of my entire life. I’ve never seen an entire party self-destruct like that! It’s like the Black Knight in “Holy Grail”: pieces keep falling off, getting mangled, and the thing keeps twitching, gibbering “It’s just a flesh wound!!!”

  17. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 11 Mar 2009 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anon, why don’t you please address the questions I posed above for Sara (since you seem to be so “intellectual”). Please demonstrate your vast wisdom.

  18. BattleCat said on 11 Mar 2009 at 1:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    You keep those tires, inflated, Anonymous!

  19. Advocator said on 11 Mar 2009 at 2:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, Anonymous, I can’t argue with the overall temper of your post above, but I believe you’re being a bit harsh on ole Rush. I’ve known lots of people without a high school, let alone a college degree, in whose presence I felt intellectually humbled. And I never begrudge a misplaced cite. I’ve made too many myself. Conversely, I wish I had a George for every knucklehead I’ve met with some alphabet soup after his/her name. Rush serves his purpose, but you’re right, he’s no substitute for someone like an Adlai Stevenson or a Scoop Jackson. Where are those types? What happened to them? Doesn’t our political system spawn them anymore?

  20. JENA said on 11 Mar 2009 at 6:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    It was a joke. Lighten people.

  21. just_curious said on 11 Mar 2009 at 6:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    off topic but yet another rape of a minor as posted on the potomac news…this stuff has got to stop. Is there something in the water around here?

  22. A PW County Resident said on 11 Mar 2009 at 7:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jena, what was the joke, I missed it. Must have been some joke.

  23. sahdman said on 11 Mar 2009 at 7:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Liberal Democrats want the government to have control over thier bodies. Is that intellectualism? Barney Frank and Chris Dodd making medical decisions for you? Not to mention coke head Obama. The man who wants to put little babies on a shelf to die.
    Funny picture although Obama knows what he is doing. (although they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) I just hope there are enough Democrats and Republicans who wise up and stop all this crap he is trying to push on us. There have to be some pro America politicians left on the hill.

  24. The other anonymous said on 11 Mar 2009 at 7:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    What sahdman said on 11 Mar 2009 at 7:40 pm, “Liberal Democrats want the government to have…”

    Let me get this straight, Conservative Republicans want to deny a woman the right to chose what to do with her own body, dictate law based upon a specific religious tradition, impose that religious tradition upon people who don’t share their beliefs, and intercede in a decision that should be between a woman and her Doctor… and you are accusing Democrats of wanting to take control over other’s bodies?

    So… how does that work, exactly?

    Do what you will… I fully respect your beliefs and your right to follow them… just leave those of us who don’t share your religious tradition alone.

  25. sahdman said on 11 Mar 2009 at 8:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    The issue of national health insurance goes way beyond abortion.

  26. Greg L said on 11 Mar 2009 at 8:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Religious tradition?” Like what, whether you eat a Turkey on a specific day in November? This sounds like the mindless blather of the Unitarians at best, and downright anti-Christian bigotry at worst. It’s called “faith”, something infinitely more central to one’s life than whether they choose to observe some “tradition”. It’s sad you can’t fathom that.

    That core principle of faith — the respect for human life, which was by the way introduced to the world as a mainstream concept largely through Christianity, is a value that while informed by faith, certainly stands on its own even without faith. Or at least it should.

    Some folks might find it comfortable to arbitrarily determine that humanity comes forth at some arbitrary moment supposedly three months after conception is estimated, although in some cases (when convenient) we can push that moment all the way to delivery if necessary. It’s just a mass of biomorphic tissue, without inherent value, and subject to the convenience of the temporary custodian. I can’t imagine how that can be. The tortured logic needed to support that conclusion is breathtakingly weak.

    Then there are those of us who with certainty believe life is a precious gift, that it starts at conception, and can quite logically conclude that ending that life meets the definition of murder.

    Yet we’re the idiots who cling to a “religious tradition” that causes us to have a faulty decision making processes. Go figure.

  27. Bob Wills said on 11 Mar 2009 at 10:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg you are intitled to your opinion on when life starts or exists. When you impose your will on others then you want to contol other peoples lives and body. Is it wrong when it is not what you believe in but right when it agrees with your thoughts?

    Now that stem cell research is again open, I wonder if those who think it is wrong would ever deny positive research from that to save or cure their child from the fruits of that research ?

  28. Greg L said on 11 Mar 2009 at 11:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    What, am I required to support people’s decision to murder their own children? Not gonna happen.

    By the way, just whose bodies are the ones you’re so concerned about being controlled by others? The ones that experience the gift of pregnancy for a few months, or the ones which are dismembered alive and forever exterminated?

    It should be interesting to see how Obama’s stem cell ‘initiative’ will create a publicly-subsidized market in disposed human fetal remains. Dismember your unborn children and get paid to do it from the taxpayer, all so we can have longer lasting erections with larger penises.

    Should I be watching for the Great Garbage Avalanche to happen and buying stock in Brawndo?

  29. sahdman said on 12 Mar 2009 at 4:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Thanks Greg last night night I was to tired to reply to the “religious tradition” line. My whole point is a person who thinks its okay to let someone starve to death in a broom closet isn’t someone I want making medical decisions for me. I didn’t even mention abortion in my first comment. I was speaking about infanticide.

  30. BattleCat said on 12 Mar 2009 at 6:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Bob Wills,

    I won’t argue the benefits of stem-cell research, because my mother suffers from parkinson’s disease, and I’d sure like to see a cure (even if it won’t come in her lifetime), but I’m wondering how the hundreds of little “power grabs” embedded in these pork-laden spending bills don’t have the same effect of intruding on your life. It may not be directly telling us what we can or cannot do with our bodies, but it seems to be rapidly approaching it.

  31. The other anonymous said on 12 Mar 2009 at 7:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg L.

    Ironic word choice, “What, am I required to support people’s decision to murder their own children? Not gonna happen.”

    Am I required to support people’s decision to make a religious position not shared by the Majority (Obama did won) in this Country the law? Not gonna happen.

    It’s simple, to each his or her own.

  32. Billy Bob said on 12 Mar 2009 at 7:17 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous, back to your remark about Rush. Do you dislike him
    because he tells the truth? So, he made a wee error, but it was
    nothing compared to the president’s (then pres-elect) huge mistake
    when he announced he had visited all 57 states!! He was, after all,
    running for president….Rush is not campaigning to become the POTUS.
    Obama is a liar and proves it more each day.

  33. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 12 Mar 2009 at 8:02 am:
    Flag comment

    I watched the Rush tv program. Rush did tell the truth! That is why the liberals do not like him…he exposes their AGENDA. Our country was founded on the principle of “small” government not “big” government. Small government would definitely be a government that THE PEOPLE could control. Big government is harder for THE PEOPLE to control which is what our current government wants. Liberal agendas (to include allowing special interest groups to have a say in things) has caused our government to become too large (with an appetite for becoming even larger). THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. When the government starts talking about “taking care of people” vice people saying it…we have a major problem. The government isn’t going to take care of anyone (that is a company line to sell their agenda). Educated people that tell the truth expose self-serving agendas. That is why liberals do not like people that do that.

  34. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 12 Mar 2009 at 8:08 am:
    Flag comment

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/03/gutierrez-denies-allegations-at-city-hall-corruption-trial.html
    “U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) today angrily denied sworn federal court testimony placing him at meeting that led to the creation of the scandal-scarred Hispanic Democratic Organization.”

    Right! Somehow I cannot come to believe what Gutierrez says. Anyone have any other information on this?

  35. Anonymous said on 12 Mar 2009 at 8:12 am:
    Flag comment

    just_curious said on 11 Mar 2009 at 6:28 pm: Flag comment

    off topic but yet another rape of a minor as posted on the potomac news…this stuff has got to stop. Is there something in the water around here?

    Yep, just look at the names!

  36. Hmmm... said on 12 Mar 2009 at 10:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Patriot:

    I’ll just point out that the two largest periods of growth in the size of the Federal government occurred under Reagan and our most recent Bush.

    Both parties allow special interests to guide the conversation over the will of the people. Under the most recent Republican administrations, those special interests were big business. The only difference today are the players, not the game.

  37. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 12 Mar 2009 at 1:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hmmm…again…liberal policies are what made our Govt large regardless of the party. The current repub party is more “liberal” than conservative. In fact, that is why McCain lost! Liberal people regardless of the party are the problem.

  38. anonymous said on 12 Mar 2009 at 1:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “The current repub party is more “liberal” than conservative.”

    That’s one reason they’re trying so hard to get rid of Jeff Frederick. The state central committee meets on April 4 to vote on removing him from office.

  39. KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bob and Battlecat, Stopping stem cell research doesn’t stop science or prevent discoveries that might protect those who are important to us. There’s nothing that can be gained from stem-cell research that can’t be gained by other methods of research, and there is now a process by which adult skin cells can be reproduced to provide similar testing opportunities.
    This is one of those issues that is completely outside of the scope of religious belief. IF you truly believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, you CANNOT support stem cell research. The concepts are just completely inconsistent. God puts us here and he will take us home when he is ready. He provides us with doctors and scientists and gives them abilities to find cures and treatments to make our lives better, but when we go so far as to use aborted children to further that research we have crossed a serious line.
    Jesus didn’t say, “Follow my rules unless you find other methods which suit your purposes better, if that happens, just disregard everything else.”
    Of course, for those who aren’t Christian, I guess it doesn’t really matter. So sad.

  40. Bob Wills said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L said on 11 Mar 2009 at 11:12 pm: Flag comment

    What, am I required to support people’s decision to murder their own children? Not gonna happen.

    By the way, just whose bodies are the ones you’re so concerned about being controlled by others? The ones that experience the gift of pregnancy for a few months, or the ones which are dismembered alive and forever exterminated?

    Greg you are not required to do anything but you will not grant others the right to do what they believe. I am concerned about others who think they can tell someone what they can and will do with thier bodies. Where does that stop ?

    If your child developed any number of different life altering medical conditions and stem cell research had found a cure would you refuse to have your childs condition reveresed if it was from stem cell production ? That is your choice but it is not your right to tell others they can not be cured of a life altering or deadly condition.

    I hope you nor your children or anyone in your family have to deal with conditions such as ALS or Parkinson and MS or MD. I hope that stem cell research will cure that some day and we at least care about those who have these conditions and not turn a deft ear or a blind eye to their conditions.

  41. Bob Wills said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm: Flag comment

    Bob and Battlecat are not christians if we believe in Stem Cell Research.

    What a pompus attitude to be the sole expert on who is or who is not a Christian. Pride is one of the great sins of all time. I will pray for you and for yours to never have to spend years with a family member who has a deadly medical condition. I forgive you for your anger as a good Christian does.

  42. The other anonymous said on 12 Mar 2009 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t remember Jesus talking about Stem Sell Research. It isn’t mentioned in the New Testament either. I do remember something about God tellling man to conquer the land and to dominate everything in Genesis 1:28. Since Genesis is the foundation of Creationism, I’m guessing its a good reference.

    So, why do some people who profess to be Christians use religion as a reason to be against some forms of Stem Cell research again?

  43. KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 3:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m not angry, I’m not the authority, and I don’t judge others. I judge policies, as is my right and responsibility as a citizen. I didn’t say that you aren’t Christians if you believe in stem cell research, I said that as Christians, we need to remember what our guiding principles should be. There’s only one criteria for being a Christian, that’s that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior. Whatever you do after that, You have to answer for. I really couldn’t care less about judging you. I was trying to give you hope that your loved ones can benefit from research that does not violate basic ethical principles for medical gains. The Bible doesn’t talk about stem cell research, but it does talk clearly about murder.
    I’m confused as to why you put “KFD Said…” and then put a line in there that I DID NOT say, and then continued to attack me and make ridiculous accusations that have nothing to do with what I said. I realize people try to pull things like that when they are recounting conversations, but to do that when anyone on here can clearly scroll up and see that you made that up? That takes real audacity.
    EVERYONE, please read what I said, and not the quote that Bob made up on my behalf.
    I didn’t realize that if someone tries to make a valid point that the person will have her words manipulated, twisted, blatantly lied about and distorted. Of course, if others have valid points, they generally don’t behave that way.
    Battlecat, I hope you see the point I was making.
    I wonder why Bob didn’t bother to address the point of my post, which is that stem cell research isn’t required for these medical advances as other methods which give the same results have already been discovered.

  44. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 12 Mar 2009 at 3:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    KFD said: “There’s only one criteria for being a Christian, that’s that you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior.”

    Actually,

    Ephesians 2: 8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

    and

    John 15:16 “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you…”

    Therefore, we cannot “accept” what is given to us (our faith in Jesus Christ as a gift)…however, scripture says this gift can be rejected.

    Just trying to keep things clarified.

  45. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 12 Mar 2009 at 3:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    and one more for good measure:
    Hebrews 12:2 “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

  46. Not Christian said on 12 Mar 2009 at 6:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    So you heard about the difference between Jesus and Barack Obama? At least Jesus could build a cabinet!

  47. KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 6:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    And the gift is rejected if it isn’t accepted. “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me.” John 14:6.
    Patriot, I’m not sure how the scriptures we are quoting are in contradiction to one another, nor do I understand how this conversation got where it is from the original post! Regardless, the passage you quoted is a message that we cannot get into heaven by doing good deeds, but that we must accept God’s grace and accept him as our savior. That’s a very different message than what I said above.
    There’s no point in us arguing something when I’m not even sure what the argument is. I have accepted the Lord Jesus as my savior, and I’m sure many of you have as well. If you haven’t, we are all praying that you will see goodness in us, the example Christ wants us to set. I’m pretty sure that we are failing to set that example now, and so I’m leaving this topic:) See y’all on the next one.

  48. Bob Wills said on 12 Mar 2009 at 11:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    KFD wonder why Bob didn’t bother to address the point of my post, which is that stem cell research isn’t required for these medical advances as other methods which give the same results have already been discovered.

    KFD what you have stated about stem cell research is not totaly true and much of what is printed by the press is not the total or absolute word on the subject mattter but we all should know that the press is not a place to get facts. What works and does not work in stem cell research has not eliminated anything known todate. We do not know what will work and what will not and due to Bush’s policies for the past 8 years we have not advanced in this country about embrionic stem cell research. I did not get my thoughts from the paper but from people who have worked with and have done stem cell research at NIH.

    Yes i did paraphrase what you said in your peace but your meaning was well understood. You have your right to any opinion you want as do others.

  49. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 13 Mar 2009 at 5:23 am:
    Flag comment

    KFD, to say you “accepted” means that you would have participated in the conversion process which is contrary to what scripture clearly says. Only the Holy Spirit can convert a heart via the power of the Gospel. Look at it like this…as an unbeliever….the unbeliever is standing in front of a door that is closed (and the unbeliever cannot know, understand, or see what is behind the door). Additionally, in this scenario the unbeliever’s hands are tied behind his/her back and has no way of opening the door him/herself. The only way for the door to be opened is for someone else to open it for him/her. Let us now say that someone else opened it for the person and now the person can clearly know, understand, and see what is behind the door. Was the unbeliever part of this “opening” process other than passively standing there by the door? No. This is how conversion works. The Holy Spirit opens up a heart which then allows spiritual understanding to take place. How does the Holy Spirit do this? Through the power of the Gospel. Once that door is opened, however, one can reject the gift. All of this squares with scripture when you put all of the scriptures together. There are many more passages that tie into all of this. Not arguing, just letting scripture say what it clearly says.

  50. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 13 Mar 2009 at 7:56 am:
    Flag comment

    KDF…here is a great paper to read…http://www.wlsessays.net/files/DrewsDecision.pdf
    Have a great day!

  51. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 13 Mar 2009 at 1:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq9diqP4PzI
    Footage of Rep. Gutierrez. Is he in the United States or Mexico? It is hard to tell based on him speaking in Spanish. Also, isn’t there something at hand regarding separation of Church and State???

  52. michael said on 13 Mar 2009 at 8:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L. I just have to pose a question and a philosophy first…

    What if a scientist takes an egg cell that is “rejected” by the body because it is not fertilized and stores it in a test tube?

    God’s natural process has declared that egg cell with its existing stem cell in it will now die outside the body, causing the infant that “could have been” to die or a form of “nature induced” infanticide, menstruation, or whatever you want to call it.

    Suppose a sperm donor bank, takes some sperm cells that also were scheduled to die by God’s natural process and put those sperm cells into that test tube.

    Does the Scientist now create life after God scheduled death?

    What if that scientist STOPs the development of those stem cell divisions and puts them in stasis, where they NEVER mature into an infant. Is that killing an infant? or sustaining stem cell division that will never become an infant…

    Is a bacteria life? A virus life? An egg cell life? A sperm cell life?

    It is my belief that God, does not intend for everyone of the some 405 egg cells and 500 billion sperm cells in each individual to become infants, although both contain stem cells and DNA to become infants.

    By not putting them ALL together and creating infants out of every one of them are we “killing” 402 of the 405 eggs and combined cells that never come to full term but are destroyed by the body?

    What if we could use those 402 cells to save children who are already born, from a natural death not stopped or prevented by God, that if left untreated would result in the death of that infant to cancer or some other fatal disease. Would that be saving an infants life, or killing one? Whould God want us to save that child or let it die? Does he encourage death or life? Does he really care about or physical life? What if his only real concern is our spiritual soul and what happens to it after we die?

    I believe their is room in scripture that does not prohibit ALL death and does not guarantee all life, in fact scripture does not talk about abortion, stem cell research right or wrong at all.

    What if you or I are second guessing God’s true intent of giving us the gift of self-determination and right to make choices that are best for each of us individually.
    I believe God will give to me and allow me to do what he will not allow you to do, because my special circumstance is different than yours.

    When did religion and republican “religious doctrine” become “judge” that judges all and enforces law on all without letting God decide and grant his own personal permission to each person based on how they hear him?

  53. Greg L said on 13 Mar 2009 at 8:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    michael, in short, no.

  54. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 14 Mar 2009 at 7:08 am:
    Flag comment

    michael said “What if you or I are second guessing God’s true intent of giving us the gift of self-determination and right to make choices that are best for each of us individually.
    I believe God will give to me and allow me to do what he will not allow you to do, because my special circumstance is different than yours.”

    Michael, the Bible (God’s Word) remains constant and does not change (regardless if we as humans “think” something does not make sense, or if it does not agree with what is “acceptable” in society at large). Remember, God is perfect and humans are not. Therefore, what God says in HIS Word is 100% reliable ALL THE TIME.

  55. Anonymous said on 14 Mar 2009 at 10:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Coming to a Wal-Mart near you:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd371350-0f2c-11de-ba10-0000779fd2ac.html

  56. Bob Wills said on 14 Mar 2009 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L said on 13 Mar 2009 at 8:51 pm: Flag comment

    michael, in short, no.

    Greg I hope that Stem Cell solves or helps to solve the medical issues of death causing deseases or is able to allow thoes who have spinal cord or brain injuries so severe that they can not walk or talk or think rationaly be helped if not cured. More then that I hope and pray that neither you nor your daughters ever have to have to choise to use the results of stem cell research to correct a medical issue for you so that you do not have to face the hard real choise of so many others that to make in the real word of life. Will you ever tell your children you would let them die rather then be cured if it were available?

  57. Karla H said on 15 Mar 2009 at 3:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    “What if a scientist takes an egg cell that is “rejected” by the body because it is not fertilized and stores it in a test tube?

    God’s natural process has declared that egg cell with its existing stem cell in it will now die outside the body” - michael

    But, Michael, who is to say what is “natural”. God created man… man takes the egg… man fertilizes the egg… to me that is a perfectly “natural” process too.

    But… but…
    1. the Bible teaches us that this will fail. It will produce offspring without both parents. Perhaps even without either parent. The children will not have the required support. They will not flourish.
    2. evolution teaches us that this is wrong as well. A species such as ours cannot survive with one parent. Certainly it can happen on a microscopic scale, and by divorced parents here and there. But it is not sustainable. There are no tribes of “Amazons” around. If there was ever a societal collapse the single parents would become prey.

    With the issue of cloning the argument becomes even clearer.
    1. Certainly the Bible is against cloning.
    2. Evolutionists know that if we populated the planet with a cloned species eventually a virus would arise that would attack the cloned species. And then the entire population would be wiped out, because they all share the same flaw… the same lack of resistance. Nature requires diversity as a form of redundancy. Cloned species cannot survive on a global scale, without man’s help. This is why nature does not rely on cloning. This is why binary reproduction is required.

    So, not to worry, Michael. Both the creationists and the evolutionists agree on this one. Even for those people like me, who do not “believe in the Bible” (i.e. a man in the sky with a white beard), we do regard the Bible as an excellent historical reference with regards to the rise of man, civilization, law, etc.

  58. The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 15 Mar 2009 at 3:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6710248
    “The shooting of a police officer is causing renewed calls for immigration reform, especially when it comes to crime. People on all sides of the issue are split about what to do.”

    “Espinosa of the Central American Resource Center said more can be done by local law enforcement, but he doesn’t want to see profiling. If they’re going to check one sector of the population, they have to check everybody, not just the Latino community, not just the Asian community, the Muslim community, but they have to check everybody, said Espinosa”

    [I THOUGHT THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS METHOD ALREADY - EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW - I SAY WE SET UP RANDOM CHECKPOINTS]. I have no problem showing my proof of citizenship.

  59. Karla H said on 15 Mar 2009 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    And as an addendum to “If there was ever a societal collapse the single parents would become prey.” Allow me to be more explicit (warning, do not read further if you are squeamish or under 18).

    Single parents can survive in modern society only because of societal liberalism (e.g. welfare). Single mothers cannot survive in “the jungle”. After a societal collapse a single mother would not stand a chance in h3ll. She would have little means for physical protection. Some big, burly, 200 lb. “biker goon” would immediately want to “exploit her”. He would take her in as a… ahem… “wife”. Her children would be “off’ed”. After all, they are the spawn of a competitor male. The goon would not want to support them since they suck up resources and do not carry his genes.

    A complete family unit, including a mother and father, is a requirement in “the jungle”.

    If you are offended by this, then ask yourself, “Is this the truth?” Are you offended by the truth?

    So, michael, again, this is where “the rubber hits the road”. This is where creationists and evolutionists concur. Mother nature will look after your concerns, michael. Rest easy.

  60. Jay said on 15 Mar 2009 at 5:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have to admit that is pretty damn funny.

    But the humor the dubya-philes are attempting isn’t nearly as funny as the last eight years.

  61. Anonymous said on 16 Mar 2009 at 8:38 am:
    Flag comment

    The Patriot (Got E-Verify?) said on 15 Mar 2009 at 3:37 pm: Flag comment
    I SAY WE SET UP RANDOM CHECKPOINTS

    …….but this would take time away from the “staff” meetings in the local mall parking lots…….(sarcasim intended)

  62. Anonymous said on 16 Mar 2009 at 8:49 am:
    Flag comment

    KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm: Flag comment

    Bob and Battlecat, Stopping stem cell research doesn’t stop science or prevent discoveries that might protect those who are important to us. There’s nothing that can be gained from stem-cell research that can’t be gained by other methods of research, and there is now a process by which adult skin cells can be reproduced to provide similar testing opportunities.

    KFD: Here is a news article that reinforces your comment above.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/13/national/main4863762.shtml

  63. Bob Wills said on 17 Mar 2009 at 11:32 am:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 16 Mar 2009 at 8:49 am: Flag comment

    KFD said on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm: Flag comment

    Bob and Battlecat, Stopping stem cell research doesn’t stop science or prevent discoveries that might protect those who are important to us. There’s nothing that can be gained from stem-cell research that can’t be gained by other methods of research, and there is now a process by which adult skin cells can be reproduced to provide similar testing opportunities.

    Asking some one who has actualy done stem cell research there are at least two serious problems with it. When a cell starts to grow and if it does not stop it turns into cancer. Science has not found a way to contol stem cell growth when it has reached it intended growth point. As an example stem cells in the brain turning into tumors. Adult stem cells have already started the growth of course but that also means that cancer causing properties are or can be with in that cell. That is one of the reasons in laymans terms as to why embronic stem cells are so important as they have no growth period of time to start the cancer causing properties.

    None of this issue is answered by an ariticle and the opinions are as vast as cells themselves.

  64. Bob Wills said on 17 Mar 2009 at 11:35 am:
    Flag comment

    Karla H said on 15 Mar 2009 at 4:06 pm: Flag comment

    And as an addendum to “If there was ever a societal collapse the single parents would become prey.” Allow me to be more explicit (warning, do not read further if you are squeamish or under 18).

    Single parents can survive in modern society only because of societal liberalism (e.g. welfare). Single mothers cannot survive in “the jungle”.

    I guess the mother bear that protects its young from the male can not survive? Maybe they survive in the cold but in a jungle it is different.

    What an offensive statement and an insult to the women whose husbands have died in War and raised their children after the fathers gave so much so you can bash their abilities to raise a family.

  65. Karla H said on 17 Mar 2009 at 8:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    “I guess the mother bear that protects its young from the male can not survive?” - Bob Wills

    News flash… people aren’t bears.

    “an insult to the women whose husbands have died in War and raised their children” - Bob Wills

    These mothers are not living in “the jungle”. They are living in modern (socialist) society. Reread my post.

    “What an offensive statement” - Bob Wills

    You are obviously quite easily offended. Have you tried anti-bvbl for a chat? They tend to have the “more emotional” types like you there.

  66. Karla H said on 18 Mar 2009 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    “ATLANTA – More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation’s history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday. … For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.”

    Bob Wills… care to comment on why “it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband”? Why would this be? Why at this particular time? (and note the words “without a husband”)

  67. Bob Wills said on 18 Mar 2009 at 9:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    Karla H said on 17 Mar 2009 at 8:44 pm: Flag comment

    You are obviously quite easily offended. Have you tried anti-bvbl for a chat? They tend to have the “more emotional” types like you there.

    Karla you must have made a lot of people laugh at the comment of me being easily offended for you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about… but i did seem to concern you didn’t I :)))

    Karla H said on 18 Mar 2009 at 11:42 am: Flag comment

    “ATLANTA – More babies were born in the United States in 2007 than any year in the nation’s history, topping the peak during the baby boom 50 years earlier, federal researchers reported Wednesday. … For a variety of reasons, it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University’s S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher.”

    Bob Wills… care to comment on why “it’s become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband”? Why would this be? Why at this particular time? (and note the words “without a husband”)

    Maybe they do not need a husband to live a full life as you seem to think it is a requirment. Maybe they are not interested in controling radical right wing thinking males who ” know ” everything. One Researcher at Duke does not define the whole world of knowledge but maybe you have a limited veiw on what it takes to live life. Now Greg and Stewart will tell you we had such an increase in babies in 2007 because of illegal immigration and they honestly might be right but I doubt if it was because or women wanting to have babies and not husbands. Maybe they have husbands but not married to them?

Comments are closed.


Views: 2005