Friday, May 04, 2007

Right to Life, abbreviated

Saw this at Grapes 2.0 and had to comment here.

From W to Congress, as reported in the New York Times:

He will veto any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

So, who's paying for Iraq?

I hate him.

21 comments:

Joe the Troll said...

But they ain't heyoomans, Jeff, they's FERNERS!!!!!

krissy said...

I hate him also...you are not alone. He is in his own little world and just plain doesn't have a clue.

He also said the key to global warming is more economic growth, because then we have the money to spend to fight global warming. That is my paraphrase, it was on NPR All Things Considered on Tuesday night..amazing.

PJ said...

I suspect that anyone who voted for that fuckwad is feeling pretty damned stupid right about now, as well they should.

venessa said...

Not all human life, mind you.

He doesn't mind if someone kills you for being a woman or for being gay or transgender, since he's vetoing the hate crime bill as well.

I really fucking hate him.

Mark said...

"He doesn't mind if someone kills you for being a woman or for being gay or transgender,"

Instead of a hate crime bill, how about stepping up enforcement against stalkers and such as well as increasing protection of their victims?

JennyJinx said...

He will veto any measures that “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.”

Oh, well, don't you know the only "human life" that matters is the kind that A) hasn't been born yet or B) is the center of a battle to pull the plug or not pull the plug. Now, if you're a 'ferner or a soldier or, maybe, Sun Hudson and just a sickly little poor kid you're not really human? You really should try to keep in mind the differences between really valuable human life and that other stuff.

Natsthename said...

He meant to say that he will veto any measures that allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of white-skinned human life. And he's ok with destruction of human life in electric chairs, too.
Whatta guy!

Paula said...

I voted for him, PJ, and I still think Kerry would have been a worse choice. There was no good candidate last election, and 2008 looks to be the same.

He meant "innocent" human life, of course. Blech.

Mark said...

I always wonder why it's admirable to vote the issues, not the party line, but when a president from either party is disliked by the other so much it's impossible for them to speak to the issues separately.

Sorry, I think it's a fair observation and you know where I stand with regard to this issue and Bush in general, contrary to my detractors' misguided opinions.

Jeff Kos said...

I don't think it's admirable to vote an issue or a party line, I think it's admirable to vote the correct way, even when it goes against your party. And by correct, I mean my way, of course.

And for the record, I disagree with Paula: I think Kerry would have been a much better president than Bush. I think Bush and his entire regime have done so much damage -- to our country, our lands, our laws, our economy, our reputation and our people -- you'd be hard pressed to point to any one single person and have me say, "Yeah, Bush was a better choice than him/her." There is nothing, not one single thing, that I admire about that man.

Mark said...

"I don't think it's admirable to vote an issue"

I would always rather see people voting issues than the party line. It tells me that they are THINKING about the issue, not voting as they are told by the party, unions, etc. It's what I've always done. And often it HAS gone against the party I belonged to before I was DTS.

Kerry?

I grudgingly voted for that elitist prick. I wouldn't go so far as to say he would have been MUCH better than Bush.

"There is nothing, not one single thing, that I admire about that man."

I tend to agree Jeff, although there were moments after 9/11 that I think he did in fact show some admirable traits. But my point was that it isn't exactly right to take him to task for things he says about the abortion issue and compare it to other issues in an effort to make him out to be a hypocrite. "Straw man" that someone is always whinging about when I do that, innit? (Or quite ioften when I don't, for that matter.

:o)>

Jeff Kos said...

I agree, there were moments following 9/11 that I thought, you know, Bush is the right man for this moment. Unfortunately, that feeling has been completely decimated by his actions since then.

Regarding taking him to taks (yes, I know that I spelled "task" wrong, but I'm trying to start one of those hip trends where a misspelled word becomes written slang), my original point was to expose his quote about taxpayer dollars for the hypocritical piece of bullshit that it is. To say something like that while your actions have resulted in the destruction of hundreds of thousands of human lives just doesn't sit well with me.

And I, for one, think Bush is pretty damn elitist himself.

Joe the Troll said...

During the 2004 Campaign, I recall saying that if the election came down o a choice between Bush and a half-eaten corned beef on rye, I'd give the sandwich a chance. After all, it hadn't just spent four solid years fucking up. And I don't even like corned beef, either.

As far as this being a "strawman", I don't see how. Bush himself said "human life". There are more forms of human life than infants, and it's highly debatable as to what point that clump of unviable cells actually becomes "human life". Those that think that every person in Iraq is a terrorist may balk at calling civilian deaths "human", but I know that most of the people on this forum would not. Many people consider prisoners to be human as well, despite their crimes.

No, he said "human" so I'd say the criticism is valid. Whe he said "human life" he opened the debate to other topics besides abortion alone. If he meant something else, then he should have said something else.

PJ said...

"I voted for him, PJ, and I still think Kerry would have been a worse choice." Well as we have so many times in the past, my friend, we can [warning! cliché alert!] agree to disagree. And I shouldn't have said the remark about stupid; it was a little harsh. Now if I were to say that Dubya is stupid, well that remark would have to stand. :-)

PJ said...

"And I, for one, think Bush is pretty damn elitist himself."

Amen, bruthah.

"If he meant something else, then he should have said something else."

Amen, bruthah.

Paula said...

Absolutely, PJ. Bush is a totally stupid, incompetent piece of shit. (Doesn't mean there aren't worse ones though.) Jeff's criticism of his moronic statement is dead on, and it's certainly not a "strawman." Some people obviously do not even know what that term means.

Mark said...

2. strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
straw man
specious argument - an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

The argument that Bush is a hypocrite because taxpayers are funding the war in Iraq and he said he would not support the abortion issue as taxpayers would fund it is fallacious, and therefore, by definition, a strawman.

The two are separate issues. There was nothing snide about any of my comments and if anyone wants a further argument, good luck.

Have a nice day.

Paula said...

You're confused, Mark. Read the definition again. Jeff did not set up a sham argument in order to refute it.

Cheezy said...

"The two are separate issues."

Amen, brother. Just like anti-Semitism and disagreeing with the some actions taken by the Israeli government are completely separate too ;-)

Anyway, how can Jeff's argument be a fallacious one? It's very simple, Bush is saying that he won't use taxpayer's money to fund the destruction of human life - while he is doing exactly that.

As Joe says, if he'd said that he wouldn't use taxpayer's money to fund the destruction of fetuses, but sees no problem with using this money to fund the destruction of human life in a war of aggression, then he could have easily avoided this hypocrisy.

PJ said...

"The argument that Bush is a hypocrite because taxpayers are funding the war in Iraq and he said he would not support the abortion issue as taxpayers would fund it is fallacious, and therefore, by definition, a strawman."

The way you've paraphrased above, I can almost see why you would draw that conclusion. But wording is everything, and here is Jeff's wording: "He will veto any measures that 'allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life.'

So, who's paying for Iraq?"

That is no strawman. Not even close. It's a fair question is what it is because when Dubya speaks of not destroying human life, he's conveniently forgetting the human lives that are being destroyed daily in Iraq.

Natsthename said...

I say we get Dorothy, the lion, and the tinman, and take the strawman to Oz.

And no way does Jeff's statement fit the strawman category.