First of all, reading Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe, I agree with her that people who make too much of how people dress, especially politicians and female politicians at that, seem to have blinders on when it comes to the issues. Are we supposed to elect politicians to what ever office based on how they dress? Or on what they can deliver policy wise to the voters? Tells you finally what credibility level the news media no longer has.
*****************************************************************************************
Penny Lancaster writes to the point of ad nauseum, in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington; what she doesn't like about porn. My take on people who go on and on and on about the subject must have a tremendously oppressed sexual urge and don't know what to do about it. So, according to her letter, porn is now an "addiction." Okay. Last time I checked, "addiction" involved uncontrollable urges for a thing or substance that you still had to make a choice as to whether to try it out the first time. Sex has never been identified as "addicting" however it has been expressed: publicly through ads, more privately through movies, or in the bedroom. And perverts as well as predators also make a choice when it comes to how they conduct their personal behavior. So, to now call certain forms of sex (such as porn) addicting, is to now absolve people of the responsibility of their own behavior.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, Keith Clark writing in defense of anti-abortionists waving gruesome signs and at the same time disgusting people prone to agree with them. Drive another route (honey) if you really don't want to see these guys waving gruesome signs. Uh, if I were to travel to a destination and the fastest way to get there was to cross paths with the creepizoids waving the signs; why would I change my driving route? For Clark's information, why should these anti-abortionists' neighbors change anything about their personal lives just so the anti-abortionists can express violence in their signs? Excuse me, but America really doesn't belong solely to extremists.
And when Clark goes on to say that these people are "persecuted;" that really cracks me up. They literally attack their fellow man with the goryist signs possible, then when criticized now whine at how "persecuted" they are. Oh? Maybe I'd have more sympathy for these people if they waved equally gory signs about the consequences of: poverty, lack of excellence in education, racial problems, homelessness that isn't only a personal decision but can also be a business decision to cast out people who aren't rich enough to move elsewhere after the desire to seize property that had been their homes and gentrify it for more wealthy renters. A problem that recently moved to Spokane, Washington after afflicting much larger cities, like New York. In short, shouldn't "pro-life" really be about those you care for not just the medical procedure you are against? You can be sure now that the anti-abortionists only regard a fetus, embryo or a blastocyst as a "human being" and their neighbors can simply go to hell.
*****************************************************************************************
Penny Lancaster writes to the point of ad nauseum, in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington; what she doesn't like about porn. My take on people who go on and on and on about the subject must have a tremendously oppressed sexual urge and don't know what to do about it. So, according to her letter, porn is now an "addiction." Okay. Last time I checked, "addiction" involved uncontrollable urges for a thing or substance that you still had to make a choice as to whether to try it out the first time. Sex has never been identified as "addicting" however it has been expressed: publicly through ads, more privately through movies, or in the bedroom. And perverts as well as predators also make a choice when it comes to how they conduct their personal behavior. So, to now call certain forms of sex (such as porn) addicting, is to now absolve people of the responsibility of their own behavior.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, Keith Clark writing in defense of anti-abortionists waving gruesome signs and at the same time disgusting people prone to agree with them. Drive another route (honey) if you really don't want to see these guys waving gruesome signs. Uh, if I were to travel to a destination and the fastest way to get there was to cross paths with the creepizoids waving the signs; why would I change my driving route? For Clark's information, why should these anti-abortionists' neighbors change anything about their personal lives just so the anti-abortionists can express violence in their signs? Excuse me, but America really doesn't belong solely to extremists.
And when Clark goes on to say that these people are "persecuted;" that really cracks me up. They literally attack their fellow man with the goryist signs possible, then when criticized now whine at how "persecuted" they are. Oh? Maybe I'd have more sympathy for these people if they waved equally gory signs about the consequences of: poverty, lack of excellence in education, racial problems, homelessness that isn't only a personal decision but can also be a business decision to cast out people who aren't rich enough to move elsewhere after the desire to seize property that had been their homes and gentrify it for more wealthy renters. A problem that recently moved to Spokane, Washington after afflicting much larger cities, like New York. In short, shouldn't "pro-life" really be about those you care for not just the medical procedure you are against? You can be sure now that the anti-abortionists only regard a fetus, embryo or a blastocyst as a "human being" and their neighbors can simply go to hell.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment