I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed for you - someone who actually believes that such could actually be communicated to yours or any liberal’s satisfaction.

And this doesn’t even parse.

Shouldn’t you be capable of at least some degree of embarrassment?

You’re right. I am perfectly capable of being embarrassed for you - someone who actually believes that such could actually be communicated to yours or any liberal’s satisfaction.

And yes, I take plagiarism very seriously. The boob was trying to pass off someone else’s words and thoughts as his own - something that apparently doesn’t upset you probably because you do it yourself.

And the rules regarding ethics exist - tis unfortunate you are too ignorant to know it.

ed.

LOL! :giggle:

Do you really think you have a part in the future of conservatism? And if you do…why?

QM

And you’re the one who’s going to tell me I don’t? Kinda impressed with yourself, no? And you might note that 12 year old little girls giggle. Adults don’t giggle.

In 6 months you will be trashing Scott Brown for being a filty RINO, Love to hear you “giggle” then.

Besides, I am smarter, prettier, richer, and have a bigger dick than you. That alone, gives me a better perspective on conservatism than you will ever have.

ed.

As your latest favorite phrase goes, reading comprehension isn’t your strongest suit. Not too sure what “beyond” lying is (aside from emotional claptrap), but the ad is false. It is wrong. It is bad. I’ve said nothing else about the ad. I CAN in fact see that. Demonstrably. Know how you can tell? Read the comments.

“The difference between you and me is that I call out my side for their sins while you ignore the ones - or try to excuse them - on your side”

Try to excuse them?
–”Attack ad is horrendous and repugnant.” (#2)
–”. . . politicians lie and lie more outrageously the closer they get to election . . .” (#2)
–”transparently misleading campaign ads” (#17)
–”Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified” (#21, which was up before you decided to post these comments)
–”offensive” (#21)
–”lying and attack ads are bad” (#21)
–”Haven’t seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad” (#21)

. . . so that ads up to “ignoring or excusing sins”? Wow. You really have gone 100% into the revisionist history camp. All the more impressive since these comments are on the SAME PAGE you wrote the exact opposite. That’s a special kind of ignorant right there.

The whipped topping on this nutty sundae is explaining that you call out your side and accusing me of not doing so — in response to me calling out my side and asking you to do so yourself. “I did before” is truly impressive. I guess I don’t have to condemn this ad either — I criticized the Dems 3 months ago, so I’m good, right?

Its your page, its your god-complex . . . rant away. But this is either blatant ignorance, insanity, a tantrum (my guess) or lying (perhaps even the awesome “beyond” lying). If you don’t care what that looks like, don’t worry. If you do, this isn’t a feather in your intellectual cap.

Since my critical comments seem to be mysteriously disappearing from your page again, I’m assuming this won’t be up for anybody to see except you. If you DO bother to read this — get your head back on straight. This is unbecoming of you.

The California Court of Appeals discussed in Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital, 256 Cal. Rptr. (1989), whether a health-care giver must inform a patient of medical options that the care-giver morally opposes. In this case, workers in a Catholic hospital refused to inform a rape victim about the “morning-after pill” (diethylstilbestrol) despite the victim’s mother requesting the information, the possibility of a pregnancy, and the need for treatment within 72 hours, because such information conflicted with the institutions’ religious beliefs. The plaintiff did not become pregnant, and the court dismissed the case because there was no compensable injury; the plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal.

Also, Lori Boyer.

Boyer had grabbed her clothes and dashed for her car in the freezing predawn darkness. Yet she’d had the clarity to drive straight to the nearest emergency room — Good Samaritan Hospital in Lebanon, Pennsylvania — to ask for a rape kit and talk to a sexual assault counselor. Bruised and in pain, she grimaced through the pelvic exam. Now, as Boyer watched Martin Gish, M.D., jot some final notes into her chart, she thought of something the rape counselor had mentioned earlier.

“I’ll need the morning-after pill,” she told him.

Dr. Gish looked up. He was a trim, middle-aged man with graying hair and, Boyer thought, an aloof manner. “No,” Boyer says he replied abruptly. “I can’t do that.” He turned back to his writing.

Boyer stared in disbelief. No? She tried vainly to hold back tears as she reasoned with the doctor: She was midcycle, putting her in danger of getting pregnant. Emergency contraception is most effective within a short time frame, ideally 72 hours. If he wasn’t willing to write an EC prescription she’d be glad to see a different doctor. Dr. Gish simply shook his head. “It’s against my religion,” he said, according to Boyer. (When contacted, the doctor declined to comment for this article.)

Boyer left the emergency room empty-handed.

30 seconds in teh Google can be so, what’s the word? Oh, yes: enlightening.

You are a plagiarizer. You just cut and pasted Tbogg’s post on my blog. Are you a robotic nincompoop with no original thoughts of your own? Evidently yes because you missed my correction above.

Holy shit what a dunce.

ed.

No. You are wrong. Who in the comments has said that the attack ad is acceptable or justified, or that in comparison to the GOP its a good thing?

Saying that GOP attack ads are equally offensive is not even remotely the same thing as saying that they are worse, or that Blue attack ads are somehow justified/authorized/appropriate because of them.

This is going to suprise you apparently, but thinking lying and attack ads are bad for some people means that you can’t ignore lying (”nobody has ever interfered with a patients EC options”) and attack ads (”Coakley insists on raising your taxes”) just because you like the team doing it. There’s a word for that — hypocrite.

Rick’s referring to the “yeabut” defense: “yeah I did it but I’m justified cuz you’re a poopy head”. That’s a stupid argument, and one that nobody here is making. But he (and you) are using an equally stupid argument — “nobacksies”. If I complain that you punched me, and you point out that I punched you too, I can’t claim “well I accused you first so no backsies” without sounding like a 5 year old (thumb sucking optional).

In fact, Rick took it to another level with his “pre-emptive no backsies” clause:

“Bob punched me in the face! Disgusting! Now watch him try and weasel out of it like a morally bankrupt pedophile by saying I hit him too . . . just like Hitler would do!”
“Well, you DID hit me. Not defending what I did, but you did hit me.”
“You see? Just like Hitler!”.

Haven’t seen a liberal in these comments defend or excuse the Dems for this ad. Why haven’t I seen a conservative man up and do the same?

@Rick:
Kudos on being quick with the correction to the OP. I’m suprised you got from “I assumed people would follow rules they morally disagreed with” to “choke on this fact you idiots”. Heck, I’m suprised you started at “why wouldn’t people follow rules the disagreed with” in the first place. Respectfully, that’s shockingly naive for someone who has little trouble spotting the failings of others.
Regardless, it was a mature thing to do to correct it at all. Well done.

Pointing out errors of fact is “worse than any one thing a Republican has done”?

Hey, far be it from me to pick on people for their voting preferences, but it seesm like at a certain point, intersecting with reality has to happen, lest one die from lack of oxygen, or wearing too many wetsuits.