TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying MoGyver's 10 most recent comments.

• MSNBC Caught Selectively Editing Another Clip — This Time of Sandy Hook Victim’s Father

  January 29, 2013 at 5:09pm

  Thanks for the straw man argument, but I think I’ll pass. Or better yet, let me fix for you:

  “Does not change the fact that [Abortion] Nuts love [themselves] more than they love children. Or that disrespectful [Abortion] Nuts would heckle a father who lost his child. [Abortion] Nuts are inhuman, with no place in any rational debate.”

• UK Doctor’s Horrifying Admission Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on ‘Death Pathways’, Deprived of Food & Fluid for 10 Days

  November 30, 2012 at 4:41pm

  In reply to quiltgal.

  AVENGERK / RANGER 1965 – Please don’t take my previous comment as support or agreement; I’m not espousing those beliefs, only repeating one of the most popular songs in the progressive library. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough when I said that it was “THEIR” ideal. (No hard feelings)

• UK Doctor’s Horrifying Admission Reveals How Sick & Disabled Babies Are Put on ‘Death Pathways’, Deprived of Food & Fluid for 10 Days

  November 30, 2012 at 2:57pm

  In reply to quiltgal.

  RANGER 1965 – “My question to all of these critics is this. Where is your line? What has to happen to you, your family, or to your country, that you would be willing to die, or kill to prevent? Or is there a line or limit at all?”

  You ask where the line is? John Lennon made it pretty clear in 1971 –

  Imagine there’s no heaven
  It’s easy if you try
  No hell below us
  Above us only sky
  Imagine all the people
  Living for today…

  Imagine there’s no countries
  It isn’t hard to do
  Nothing to kill or die for
  And no religion too
  Imagine all the people
  Living life in peace…

  You may say I’m a dreamer
  But I’m not the only one
  I hope someday you’ll join us
  And the world will be as one

  Their ideal is that there’s NOTHING to kill or die for. NOTHING is worth getting that upset about. I mean, there’s “no heaven or hell” and everyone is just “living for today”

• CBO: If We Extend Unemployment Benefits, It’ll Create Jobs & Boost GDP!

  November 30, 2012 at 2:48pm

  They say that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Since the government has taken away the “necessity” to make ends meet, I shudder to think of the innovation that has been stifled over the years. Now, the creativity that once was directed to best serve your fellow man (and make money at it in the process) has been RE-directed to best serve one’s self. The question is all too often now “How can I get the most out of the system?” (and, to be fair, there’s also a fair amount of creativity redirected from “How do I best grow this business?” to “How do I best protect my business from tax and legal liability?”)

  It’s an unfortunately reality that it’s more of the same coming down the line.

• An Obama Volunteer Called Us, So We Interviewed Him: ‘Really Afraid’ of the Tea Party, Rising Unemployment Numbers A ‘Good Sign’, & Benghazi a ‘Flare Up That’s Bound to Happen’

  November 5, 2012 at 1:46pm

  “Paul listed other reasons informing him to vote for Obama this cycle, the president’s ‘inclusiveness’ being one of them. The fact that he was ‘really afraid of tea party exclusion politics’ was another.”

  Talking about the President’s “inclusiveness” then, in the same breath, calling out a segment that they want to exclude (on the basis of “their exclusion policies”)?

  Nothing to see here.

• Bias Study: Romney Was Mocked More Than 2 Times More Than Obama During Late-Night Monologues

  November 1, 2012 at 11:53am

  I’d be curious to drill down in these numbers a little deeper to see the *kind* of jokes that were being made. For instance, were jokes poking fun at intelligence, hypocracy, ineffectiveness, wealth? I have a suspicion that a larger percentage of “this politician is stupid” gets doled to the (R) while more of the “this politician has the right ideas but isn’t getting it done” goes to (D).

  Again, that’s my gut feeling just from what I’ve seen; I’d love to see the numbers.

• 10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion

  October 29, 2012 at 1:15pm

  In reply to MoGyver.

  @OBJECTIVETRUTH Fair enough regarding the distinction between “assault” and “battery.” So let’s just create two hypothetical situations:

  1. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The woman wants to keep the child but the man does not want the responsibility of a child. He deliberately batters the woman in such a way as to cause a miscarriage.

  2. Two consenting adults copulate and the woman becomes pregnant. The man wants to keep the child but the woman does not want the responsibility of a child. The woman has an abortion.

  Now, there are admitted differences between these two scenarios (ie. in #1, the woman is harmed, not just the child vs #2 where the man is not physically hurt and in #2, the woman would have to “endure” the hardship of pregnancy and labor wherein the man would not even if he wanted to).

  There are a few implications here. In one case, the abortion (done via battering) is in many circles considered murder while the other is not (inconsistent). The other is that the man’s wants are largely off the table. If the man wants to keep the child but the woman does not, then he has no claim to the child (“But the woman would have to go through enormous pain!” I get that).

  On the flip side, if the man doesn’t want the child, he doesn’t get the same choice that the woman has: if SHE doesn’t want the responsibility, SHE gets to choose. HE gets no choice (and we wonder why there’s so many deadbeat fathers out there)

• 10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion

  October 26, 2012 at 3:38pm

  In reply to Kane Freeman.

  @KANE FREEMAN thanks for taking the time to answer. So based on your answer for when life begins in combination with your answer above to question #5, would you be a proponent of euthanizing the post-born who similarly don’t meet those requirements? For example, a child that while in the birthing process loses access to oxygen long enough to cause a severe brain injury but does not die or a fully realized adult that has a major stroke or head trauma?

  For the record, I’m not trying to back you into a corner; I’m just curious to hear whether we should consider factors other than cognitive ability when categorizing the pre-born.

• 10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion

  October 26, 2012 at 3:10pm

  In reply to Kane Freeman.

  Out of curiosity, what made you choose the beginning of the third trimester? Is there some biological change that occurs at (or around) that time? If so, why not just say that the unborn begins to have their own rights when that biological change occurs? It seems to me that this in an important enough distinction that we’d want to have clear-cut scientific reasons and not some subjective “number.”

• 10 Questions the Media Never (or Rarely) Ask Pro-Choice Candidates About Abortion

  October 26, 2012 at 1:59pm

  In reply to Konservative PUNK.

  @WVERNON1981 The troubling point is that I haven’t heard many pro-choice reasons for abortion that couldn’t also be applied to certain other “post-born” segments of the population (ie. mentally handicapped, certain stroke victims, much of the elderly) such as being a “burden” or “would not contribute to society” or “would not meet some standard of quality of life” or what-not.

  If we as a society, deem these reasons for terminating pregnancies, what’s to stop this (or the next) generation from taking the next logical step? Or would you argue that, under certain conditions (let’s just say a debilitating stroke), you could lose that which earlier defined you as human?