Joel Pett for October 27, 2009

Who is “us”?

Because we all know the Dems want to lose two wars, they don’t want anyone to have a job and they want to drive all good hearted insurance companies out of business. So un-American.

church, just to make sure I heard you right, you are against health insurance reform? Are you for health care delivery reform? Perhaps single payer? Or do you like things the way they are?

Scott, when someone doesn’t agree with your agenda don’t you call them nuts, psychos, extremists, and a danger to the planet?

So….since you’re a leftist…how’s the work on re-electing Obama going?

I love how Scott tries to pretend he’s a historian, yet he’s already forgotten Bush’s “You’re either for us or against us!”, which he now considers a “leftist view”.

Pretty accurate toon. One might also go back a while and look at what these folks cheered for that most put the USA at risk today.

Like abandoning diplomacy?

“Yes, I’m for “Insurance Reform””

Cool, Church, nice to see you’re finally abandoning the dwindling Republicans.

So what sort of “Insurance Reform” are you in favor of?

By the way, if you really are interested in what’s going on in the real world, perhaps it’s time you abandoned that dwindling Republican mouth piece, Faux “News”.

Machado, you need to join the real world.

Your so-called strong Republican party now counts for less that a fifth of the populace.

And their mouth piece, Faux News, was caught broadcasting Republicans news releases, typos included, as their “real news”.

How much lower do they need to go before you abandon them?

It’ll make you feel better, Scott. Listening to only Faux will help you with your charade that your party still has relevance.

Nope, sorry, Howie.

Pelosi doesn’t have this much free time.

No, sorry, Striper…you don’t get to ignore all the questions I’ve asked you, and then expect me to answer yours.

Here’s one you’ve run away from, with your hypocritical tail between your legs, multiple times, on multiple threads. Answer it, and I’ll answer yours.

Gee, Striper, on the Luckovich 10/23 thread you said you based your hatred of homosexuals on the old testament.

Do you also therefore hate people who work on Sunday, who eat shellfish, get haircuts, and women who wear clothes made of two types of cloth?

Or do you just select out parts of the bible that meet your needs, and ignore the rest?

Which would explain your cursing at me (Luckovich 10/23) despite the biblical penalty of stoning. Lev 24:14

No, sorry, Striper…you don’t get to ignore all the questions I’ve asked you, and then expect me to answer yours.

Here’s one you’ve run away from, with your hypocritical tail between your legs, multiple times, on multiple threads. Answer it, and I’ll answer yours.

Gee, Striper, on the Luckovich 10/23 thread you said you based your hatred of homosexuals on the old testament.

Do you also therefore hate people who work on Sunday, who eat shellfish, get haircuts, and women who wear clothes made of two types of cloth?

Or do you just select out parts of the bible that meet your needs, and ignore the rest?

Which would explain your cursing at me (Luckovich 10/23) despite the biblical penalty of stoning. Lev 24:14

First off, you don’t get to ignore all the questions I’ve asked you, and then expect me to answer yours.

I think everyone here would agree you hate homosexuals, Striper, as we’ve previously discussed.

But let’s use your disingenuous preferred term, “disapproved of”.

Striper, on the Luckovich 10/23 thread you said you based your disapproval of homosexuals on the old testament.

Do you also therefore disapprove of people who work on Sunday, who eat shellfish, get haircuts, and women who wear clothes made of two types of cloth?

Or do you just select out parts of the bible that meet your needs, and ignore the rest?

Which would explain your cursing at me (Luckovich 10/23) despite the biblical penalty of stoning. Lev 24:14

We all look forward to your (hypocritical) reply.

BTW, ReasonsVentriloquist asked you some pointed, yet also unanswered questions here:

http://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2009/10/23?comments_page=2!

I’m sure Jesus loves seeing you substitute slander for substance!

Ooo, which nerve of yours got stimulated, Stan?

Hmm, if stripper found out a fetus at eight weeks was transgender, would he abort it?

Or for the sake of discussion we could pretend that a genetic test could determine it.

Then you could go ahead and answer the question about what you would do, Striper, instead of just running away from it.

Actually transgender is something that can happen during fetal development. There are lots of transgender people who have both, or ambigious genitalia. That South African runner is an example of that. Now, there are transexuals, which are people who identify with the opposite sex. This however does not make them gay. We have family friend who was married to a woman and decided we wanted to be a woman also. Had a sex change and never looked back and is also still happily married. The human body is not a cookie cutter thing. It can, for all kinds of genetic or environmental reasons have variations in not only gender but also the brain’s interpretation of sexual arousal and enjoyment. It is almost impossible to place anyone into one specific bracket. Now the question as it pertains to society is does that behaviour cause enough disturbance to society that it ought to be regulated? In the case of consenting homosexuals it does not because according to modern law, two consenting adults have the right to do what they please in the bedroom. Now if we have those who are arroused by inciting fear, danger or violence as part of their sexual gratification (I dont mean S&M, but rather rapists and such), then that is something that is and should be regulated as it infringes on the rights of another. Pedophiles same deal since we as a society deem children incapable of establishing legal consent, and as so we deem it illegal. Beastiality follows the same trend (or as some prefer, interspecies erotica). The human spectrum of sexuality is complicated and a legal mine field, but the most important thing is that we dont allow our personal convictions to cloud the judgment of the issue.

“But still, the question remains”

That’s true, Striper. If you’re as busy as you say, why do invest so much time running away with your tail between your legs, inventing ad hominem attacks, and whatever else you lamely think qualifies as a legitimate reason for avoiding answering questions directed at you?

Let’s try it again: if it were possible to ascertain that a given fetus was to be born ambiguous in its sexuality, would you be in favor of terminating that abomination?

Do you honestly think no one notices your hypocrisy? Can you be that naive?

Answer it.

a.c.d. of course gives the medical definition of transgender. Words may have different meanings in common use, slang, medical, or legal applications.

“Fanatic”, and “nuts” are examples of words construed differently, just like “bigot”. It is in large part why outlets such as Fox news can launch diatribes against OUR government, and be followed by those ignorant of facts, or challenged by those with alternative interpretations to their hate.

Let’s try it again, Striper: if it were possible to ascertain that a given fetus was to be born ambiguous in its sexuality, would you be in favor of terminating that abomination?

you didn’t serve did you striper

or did you

btw i’m the one flagging every time your name-calling and verbal insanity are impossible to tolerate

If all the christians who have been called not-a-christian by other christians were to disappear, there would be no christians left.

Which may well be Striper’s goal.