Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Barbara Boxer Continues Senatorial Ignorance


If it wasn't ignorant enough that Harry Reid tried paint the republicans as modern variants of proslavery democrats because they don't support Obamacare, now we have Barbara Boxer, the liberal sfacime senator from California making the assertion that denying the funding of abortion is the same as denying paying for a man's prescription for viagra.

Obviously Boxer doesn't have the facilities to recognize the differences in both the purpose of each and the consequences. Abortion is killing a human being, most often because it's an inconvenience. In fact, over 97%.

Viagra is for the purpose of making an impotent man have an erection. Generally erections are for the purpose of creating human beings. Most men that use viagra are probably over 40, if not 50. Generally speaking, viagra enhances a man's self-esteem, not to mention his partner's appreciation. Just ask Enzyte Bob. :)

On the other hand, the consequences of abortion are not so rosey. Many women who get abortions suffer depression, loss, and grieve. They have killed their own and no matter why they got it done, the effects are life long. Many women that get abortions have problems conceiving because of the physical effects of having the abortion because of damage to the uterus.


Neither abortion or viagra have a place in the healthcare debate. One, abortion isn't healthcare, it is death.  The american people shouldn't have to subsidize death. I also think that if a man want to get a woody, even if he cannot not without pharmaceutical help, he should pay for it himself. Americans don't need to be responsible for what happens with that either.

This is just another case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy thinking that the democrats are using because they are desparate. Their backs are to the wall because the american people do not want Obamacare, they don't want a socialized government of healthcare and in spite of this, the dems are intent on shoving this don our throats, even at the peril of their jobs. The lesson that is lost on them is that emotional appeals are the last refuge of morons.



So, did Boxer act alone, or did she get marching orders from Barack or MoBama? I suppose we'll never know, but in this case, she was following Hairy Dweeb's lead and did this one from the heart. Still, she's wrong, as usual, and again, the dems keep digging for lower lows.

The only conclusion I can make from all of this is that  the dems must be real true believers in socialism and marxism. There's no other way to explain why they would pull these stunts when they have such opposition from the american people. They would rather believe they are right, rather than listening to their constituencies or re-examining their values. Either way, they probably will be done next November. While this may seem to bode well for the GOP, I wouldn't put all my hope with them either. Not just yet. They have a very bad habit of forgetting where they came from and become stranger lovers as well. If it's any indication, Palin has hinted at a third party run (she's within 1% of Obama she's not even running). While it may devide the GOP for a dem win in 2012, it may also herald a new party such as when Lincoln won in 1860 with the new Republican party. Personally, I think it is time for a new party. Michael Steele & Co. have served us poorly.

Thank you for reading this blog.

12 comments:

Ran said...

Hey, RG...
...Thanks for the larfs! Let's pray she loses her reelection race.

The Right Guy said...

Against the GOP in CA? It's possible, as the senate seat is state wide. THe GOP would have to come out in force, and I mean > 60%. Who is running against her, or are we not up to that yet?

chuck said...

"Abortion is killing a human being, most often because it's an inconvenience."

Which is why it's not a religious issue. The fact that religious folks tend to oppose abortion mills only speaks to the tendency toward morality among religious people and not to any moral ambiguity about the act of killing children.

When we need to know whether someone is alive or not, we don't call a priest. We call a doctor. The medical science is in. We know these are little people being butchered for profit.

Clarity is all we really need.

The Right Guy said...

I would think many people are morally ambiguous when it comes to abortion. On the other hand, I can make a perfectly good argument against it without mentioning a deity.

As far as clarity goes SCOTUS cleared it up in 1974, no? Unfortunately, not everyone has a good sense of morality.

chuck said...

The problem is Roe v Wade was a calculated lie. There is no right to "privately" kill a child anywhere in the Constitution. They simply made it up, and the other two branches of government have deferred out of cowardice.

The Right Guy said...

The executive branch couldn't do much except show leadership on it. Look at who were president during that time: Nixon and then Ford. Neither was what I would call pro-life or anti-abortion. The congress had the power, and they always have, but never did anything. It's funny how they will do things we don't want and won't do things we do want. This is one area where I think the left are scum, and it's indisputable. The next thing you know they will promote pederasty...Ohm they are doing that now.

chuck said...

As I read the Constitution, I see no Federal authority there whatsoever minus the disgusting and insulting precedent of Roe.

That's the bitch about SCOTUS decisions. Overturning them is the only real solution. Pro-lifers who advocate constitutional amendments and such are really talking about opening a giant Pandora's box that needn't have happened if the issue could have simply been dealt with democratically. Plus it would only serve to further pervert the nature of the debate. Anything involving the Federal government always does.

The Right Guy said...

I often wonder what the founders would have thought of that mess. Even the second amendment issues. I wonder if these situations would have made them rethink their writing the constitution... It's all fantasy. We are where we are. The only way to shape SCOTUS is to appoint better judges. Unfortunately, Obama is the wrong guy to appoint anyone. Let's hope Stevens et al live another 3+ years.

chuck said...

"It's all fantasy. We are where we are. The only way to shape SCOTUS is to appoint better judges. Unfortunately, Obama is the wrong guy to appoint anyone. Let's hope Stevens et al live another 3+ years."

I completely reject that, man. It's about Congress! Congress has the Constitutional power(duty) to put a whole lot of this shit asunder. They can check the Court and they can check the Executive. They aren't doing it because the American people have bought into this bullshit paradigm of the Executive and the Judicial being sovereign while Congress does what they are ordered to do by the two aforementioned branches.

All is not lost.

The Right Guy said...

Unfortunately, they will not. Considering the numbers, we have a better chance with the court doing it, as much as I don't like the court making law. I made the remark as part of reality. Even in the height of Newtland, they never overturned the great society reforms, SS, or Roe v Wade. It's never happened. That's the fear I have with Obamacare and cap and tax. Once it is passed, we are done.

chuck said...

Term Limits.

The Right Guy said...

That's a good start, but in their eyes, not in their best interests.

You also might like:

Related Posts with Thumbnails