Wednesday, November 01, 2006

I'm Sorry, So Sorry (that you all are idiots)

From the web page of Senator John Kerry, US Government:



Statement of Senator John Kerry

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.
Kerry just doesn't know when to stop. He almost got it right in the first paragraph then he goes on to excuse, obfuscate, and blame. The last two paragraphs basically say, "I regret that you are so stupid you can't understand that everyone not a Democrat is to blame for the insensitive and unthinking words that came from my mouth. I am truly sorry you are all so ignorrant not to understand I am actually saying the American people are a bunch of backwoods boobs.

Gawd, I wish Americans were French! Maybe France could buy back the Louisiana Territory."




The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

29 comments:

dcat said...

He is the idiot!!!

dcat said...

It wasn't a slip!!!

It was there all along!

atheling2 said...

Don't you want to slap him?

Indigo Red said...

There was a time in America when stupid Senators would be caned by the more intelligent Senators. Ahh...those were the days.

atheling2 said...

LOL!

How about the Senate of Ancient Rome? Now there was blood and guts!

mudkitty said...

Yeah A2 - that's something to look up to! Not.

atheling2 said...

Hey mudkitty,

Still waiting for you to explain why it's insulting to compare the Holocaust of the Jews (or anyone for that matter) to abortion at Doug's site.

Still huffing and puffing?

Cat got your tongue?

Or is it that your liberal programming doesn't allow you to think or ponder the issue deeply?

mudkitty said...

Because jews are human beings. Not embryos without brains or nervouse systems. That much should be obvious.

atheling2 said...

So you are saying that a person is not a human being if they don't have a brain or nervous system? Therefore, if I surgically removed your brain you no longer qualify as a human being?

BTW, the brain and nervous system starts to develop at the 5th week of pregnancy - hardly a time when most women even know they are pregnant. By the time a woman might consider abortion, the unborn baby is well developed beyond the embryo point.

Another question: since we were all fetuses at one point, why is it an insult? It's an inescapable fact. Why do you liberals look at the unborn with such disdain? Why can't you consider the possibility that "superiority" is not based on size, location, or functionality?

Lastly: What makes something a human being? Answer me that. What is the criteria?

mudkitty said...

Birth makes someone a human being. Very simple. That's something EVERYBODY can agree on, and you don't need a 1000 year old religious text to tell you that. Jeez. As if that isn't obvious.

Take a biology class, will ya! There are no brain waves untill the 23rd and 26th week. The time period that covers Roe.

If they surgicly remove your brain, you no longer qualify as ALIVE. What's you point?

One last time: to compare a fetus with a jew is to compare a human being to tissue that has no conshiousness, and is not even born. Would you compare jews in general to 2 year olds? That would be an insult too, only comparing them to fetus' is so much worse. (Note - I'm not comparing fetuses to two year olds - that's you're job.)

Please tell me you are only pretending to be this obtuse.

Indigo Red said...

From blastula to death, it, he, she, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Indian chief, lawyer, or mudkitty is a human being from beginning to end. Oh, scratch lawyer.

Two year olds are by definition not fetuses. Birth only trnsforms the little human from fetus to baby. It does not change the inherent worth of that human child nor it's rights to life, liberty, and pusuit of happiness.

"...no brain waves untill the 23rd and 26th week..." just a wee bit late are ya, mudkitty.

The religious text is over 4000 years old because one must strat with the Old Testament of the Jews known as the Torah. Read a book once in awhile.

And just for the record, I too find "it's insulting to compare the Holocaust of the Jews (or anyone for that matter) to abortion..."

atheling2 said...

"conshiusness"???? What word is that?

atheling2 said...

Indigo,

The original argument began at Doug's Political Pistachio, where Doug delineates the methods of the Nazis to dehumanize Jews in order to justify murdering them to the pro abortion camps which employ the same methods.

Kittylitter here started to bluster about insulting Jews. I challenged her and she has not responded there.

Indigo Red said...

She does have a dictionary beside her, so that must be a word, even if she wrote it in herself with a crayon.

I didn't go into the Holocaust/ abortion argument because I didn't know the context or the orininatin blog. I shall check it out.

mudkitty said...

I have a dictionary right here, along with the U.S. Constitution. What do you want to know?

Btw - did you know that abortion was legal at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution?

You're right, the old testament is older than 1000 years...so what? It's not like you follow the rules in Leviticus.

As for embyology, I've don't the research. You can go look it up too. And no, an embryo humman tissue, but it's not a human being. Tell me, would a zygote be a human being before it separates into twins? Or is one zygote two human beings? And that's just for starters.

Giving a zygote the same legal status as a born person is just absurd, so much so that it will never happen.

atheling2 said...

Then why is it that the ban on killing the American Bald Eagle, considered an endangered species, also extendx to a ban on destroying any of its eggs?

atheling2 said...

oops, extends vice extendx

Indigo Red said...

At the time of The Founding, abortion was neither legal nor illegal as it should be, as well as smoking, and marijuana use. Ben Franklin actually wrote and published an essay advocating the legalization of farting.

What liberals don't understand is the Constitution is not a list of things the people can or cannot do. The Founders intended and wrote into the document that if it's NOT in the Constituion, then that right, priviledge, and activity was the right of the people and of the several States.

Exactly which rules in Leviticus? he asked with great amusement knowing full well the questioner has no clue that the rules in Leviticus apply to Jews, not necessarily to Christians. And most definitly not to Atheists.

Mudkitty writes a fine Freudian Slip (look it up), "As for embyology, I've don't the research." Typing "don't" with the apostrophe is a deliberate act although unconscious. It sure says alot about the research actually done.

"And no, an embryo humman tissue, but it's not a human being." I'm sorry, you've lost me there. I have no idea what this means nor can I guess at the intent.

Developing human tissue is still human tissue; it is not shark tissue, or giraffe tissue. A blastula is developing human tissue before it reaches the developmental stage at which time it is called a zygote. One zygote can split into two zygotes and both are human. Why would you think that a zygote would suddenly NOT be human just because there are now twins, or triplets, or quads, or (I think that may be taxing your counting ability, so I'll stop there.)

"Giving a zygote the same legal status as a born person is just absurd, so much so that it will never happen." Sorry, mudkitty. It's already a done deal. Kill a pregnant woman at any stage of pregnancy is the killing of, at least, two human beings. As you said, "You can go look it up too." Oddly, though, the law only applies IF the child is wanted. Here is where the law gets stupid and agrees with you. If the developing child, at any stage, is NOT wanted then the destruction of the child is not killing. Tell me, if I don't want my gardener, firing him may be racist, but if I were to "off" him, is it NOT murder? Is it only murder if I wanted to keep the keep the gardener?

Tell me, just when does developing human tissue at any stage, change into some other being NOT human. Several years ago in a tragic cooking accident, I sliced off a small portion of a finger. With the possibilty of human cloning just around the corner, is it possible that piece human tissue could develope into, say, a Siberian Tiger?

And here's a freebie for you. Next time you're blowing smoke trying to con folks into believing you've done your homework so you won't get stuck in Iraq, spell the important words correctly.

Back to the Freudian Slip - it's emBRYology. Getting that wrong, plus the slip revealing the truth totally blows your story. It's like saying you work at a "libary".

You know, by telling us that you are "old enough" didn't impress me. The lack of any adult reasoning abilities belies the claim. Now, had you said you are only 8 yrs old, I'd be very impressed. If you really are an adult, and 'educated', then I would suggest you get your money back.

atheling2 said...

Oh oh oh oh oh!

*clutching tummy and ROFLMAO!!!*

But seriously, Indigo, isn't it a drag that every time we talk to a liberal we have to get all parental and educational with them? I mean, their reasoning skills, their language and their knowledge of facts are so impoverished because they haven't been educated. They've been PROGRAMMED.

mudkitty said...

Your such a great big speller A2.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are you kidding? You can't tell the difference between a chicken and an egg? Are you saying that killing a eagle egg wouldn't be worse than killing a hatched eagle? Regardless of law?

Do you think a miscarraige is equally tragic to the murder of, say, a 10 year old? Ask any mother, even a s0-called pro-life mother, what she thinks about that?

If a building that contained a day care center, and a fertility clinic was on fire, and you had to choose between saving the embryos or the 2 year olds, that's a no brainer right?

We could play games like this all day long if you like.

The fact is, the Republican Party is never going to overturn Roe, and they don't want to, because it would dry up a fundraising aparatus.

mudkitty said...

A 4-h camp would help you guys.

atheling2 said...

Oh brother, Indigo, get rid of her.

Indigo Red said...

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Even though this question has been posed as a great conundrum, a real head scratcher, one that has no answer, it really is too easy.

Chickens are not a natural creature of the wild. It was invented in southeast Asia in the country we know as VietNam. It was bred through the crossbreeding of different semi-domesticated wild fowl until the completely domesticated bird we call "chicken" occurred.

Which came first? The egg.

mudkitty said...

The egg. How can there be an egg without a bird or a reptile or a fish? This isn't really about chickens, after all.

What about the burning building? Who you going to save? You can't save both, you have to choose between the embryos or the 2 year olds.

Also, do you have children?

Indigo Red said...

mudkitty said:
"A 4-h camp would help you guys."

As stated in the post "Heroes and Lgends", I grew up on a ranch. Been there, done that as the saying goes.

Indigo Red said...

mudkitty said:
"The egg. How can there be an egg without a bird or a reptile or a fish? This isn't really about chickens, after all."

This is possibly the dumbest statement/question you have offered considering the absolute, incontrovertable FACT that I wrote:

"It was bred through the crossbreeding of different semi-domesticated wild fowl until the completely domesticated bird we call "chicken" occurred."

mudkitty said...

No, the first egg. How could there be a first egg without a bird, or other egg bearing animal in the first place. We're not just talking about chickens. Don't be obtuse.

So, what about the burning building? Why do you keep avoiding answering that what would you do question?

Indigo Red said...

Obtuse? New word, you've used it twice already. I've already said that "silly" means "stupid" which is a favorite Democrat description of those who disagree with them, you now come back with "obtuse" which, among other things, means "stupid". Calling the host stupid in any form isn't the best way to win friends and influence people. To be accurate, I'm being obdurate, which is my natural state.

I don't concern myself with the first egg or much with the first of anything. Everything had an origin, but it's only a fun mental puzzle leading nowhere. The one thing I do know about the first egg is this - it's long gone, either hatched or eaten, and I'll go with eaten sunnyside up, with sausage, hash browns, and whole wheat toast.

As for burning buildings, as a general rule, I'm against them. What would I do in a burning building? Well, I have marshmellows, weiners, and I know a few camp songs...

mudkitty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.