:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

:: Friday, October 15, 2004 ::

Aw, this is just for fun...

My oldest friend wrote:

"What do you think about the debates/election so far? I just watched the 3rd debate and for the first time, think Kerry has a very real chance of winning. Perhaps our views on a few critical issues differ, but I think most things being equal, the country needs to move on. Kerry can accomplish that."

Tee hee.

Of course I had much to say. Notice how I efficiently stole from my own blog to get my point across and preserve my indolence:

"hey! i think bush's answers to some of kerry's lame-arse charges sucked a big fat butt.
i mean, where IS bush's FACT man, for crying out loud???

i have to say, since you asked, that i loathe (with a seething passion) kerry. but this is only because he is a child-murdering, woman-wounding lunatic. besides that... he's an ok guy!

he voted for partial birth abortion a whopping SIX times. at the 2nd debate he said, "it's not as simple as you'd make it out to be, bush. there needs to be a health exception." bush idiotically answered, "you're either for it or against it... pretty simple to me." EHHH! wrong answer, jobbernowl! what he SHOULD have said was:

"Mr. Kerry, you're not telling the American people that the American Medical Association, which supports abortion, says PBA is NEVER medically necessary. A C-section can be performed that far along to preserve both the mother and child's health. Mothers deserve to have their health and their children and should not have to choose between one or the other. I want to ensure a woman's right to both."

kerry also voted against the Laci Peterson Law. he thinks 8 or 9 month old conner peterson was not a person. he thinks traci marciniak's son, zach, was not a person too. take a look for yourself.

do you know that her husband only got convicted for spousal abuse? can you imagine what kind of slap-on-the-wrist sentence he got? holy mackeral! if kerry thinks a woman ought to have a "choice" then he ought to better support women who choose to have their child. and i don't want to hear that it threatens roe v. wade. california is one of the most abortion-worshipping states in america (abortion was legal there before roe v. wade) and even THEY recognize conner peterson (and those like him) under the law. you don't see this "turning back the hands of time" and affecting roe v. wade one bit. so there's simply no excuse. none at all.

i think kerry is dangerous and INSANE on the parental consent issue as well. hello, you can't get an aspirin at school without parental consent, but you can get a second trimester abortion? WHAT THE? and that's REAL good news in states like florida where there are more health regulations mandated for veterinary clinics than late-term abortion facilities! oh yeah. don't even get me started on the women's health and safety act, because then i'll have to lambast king who, once he saw it would pass, withdrew it from the vote. (i testified before the florida house on this myriad times. it passed every time. the curmudgeon just would NOT let it get to the senate.) now, back to kerry... rant, rant, rant... he brought up the lame-arse argument: "i wouldn't require a teen raped by her father to ask her father for permission for an abortion." i don't even think bush had a response. that doesn't mean their wasn't one. that just means bush is disappointingly pseudo-passionate about this issue. HE SHOULD HAVE SAID:

"Mr. Kerry, the kind of case you're talking about accounts for less than two percent of all abortions. Over ninety-three percent of abortions are performed electively. It is neither economical nor rational to abandon over ninety-three percent of teens to bad law for the benefit of less than two percent. Additionally, in the only studies on the subject of abortion for incest, most moms wanted to keep their children because they felt that it was the only chance of: a) escaping the abuse and/or b) having any semblance of a normal relationship with a family member, i.e., someone who would love the abused person without wanting sex from them (or covering up crimes against them). Lastly, you wouldn't have to worry about a girl in this situation asking her rapist father for permission to abort. As in so many of these cases, he would be the one driving her to the clinic to abort whether she liked it or not. He would not want his crime exposed and would seek to get rid of the evidence so that he could continue the abuse. Abortion in these cases perpetuates child abuse. Women deserve better. I seek to expose this abuse and protect ALL of our young American girls. Not just two percent of them."

every time kerry answered someone on the abortion issue, notice that he had a stock "as a catholic i respect the spirit in which you ask this question..." let me tell you how MUCH kerry respects the spirit of a citizen's abortion concerns, mooncalfed liar that he is...

my friend rebecca porter went to one of his rallies to protest abortion silently. the way she did this was to hold a placard which read "my abortion hurt me." wow. DANGEROUS. no wonder kerry's cronies were totally alarmed (sarcasm here). they manhandled her (she held on tight, but they ripped her sign out of her hands right in front of kerry), stole her property (illegal), vandalized it (by ripping it up-also illegal), and threw it back in her face. this made the underground media junket (because violent liberal "choicers" NEVER make the liberal media) and was brought to the attention of kerry who chose not to respond. (good grief, even the painter's union was smart enough and decent enough to respond compassionately to the victimized, 30-yr-old sophia parlock!)

'twould have been ok (not really) were it an isolated incident, but this type of intimidation was repeated at other locations. the rights of grieving/protesting women who showed up were completely violated and unapologetically so. so i can tell you that kerry does NOT respect the concerns of those who oppose or are hurt by abortion in the least. his "respect" is a big fat lie. and as an aside, abortion causes breast cancer in women. how can a person claim to be for women if they support a thing that victimizes women exclusively? and yes, legally he supports it.

also, he hangs out with the most fringe abortion groups ever... groups that are FOR partial birth abortion (NARAL), which most "pro-choice" americans don't even support. kerry makes these nut-groups promises such as his supreme court litmus test vow: he will never appoint a judge who is personally pro-life. i want to know why he is trying to convince the nation that he is not going to legislate from the hot seat, but tells the country that he won't appoint a "personally pro-life" judge. HELLO, what is he saying? another red flag.

either the guy is not really against abortion or he isn't really catholic. i hate to bring spirituality up and all, but when you serve Christ HE COMES FIRST. not your own thoughts or desires or perceptions but Christ's. re: the presidency... if you work for Christ then you work for Him first, your country second, yourself last. were kerry really a Christian he would do everything in his power to legally, respectfully, protect innocent children. some people say the Bible isn't clear on abortion, but it is UBER clear. many many passages reference the importance of children, how they do not belong to us (or even themselves), how they are blessings and gifts from God created by God. the Bible is also very clear on how we are to respond to innocent people being lead away to death. It is also very clear on our responsibility to those forsaken by their parents, which children who are aborted most certainly are.

personally, i've seen enough re: how kerry operates to opine that he is lying on both counts. he is NOT personally against abortion and he does NOT follow Christ. no one is perfect for pity's sake, but accidentally cussing when you stub your toe and voting for partial birth abortion SIX TIMES are two entirely different things.

and don't get me started on the war... he's against that, and our wonderful, tremendous, sacrificing soldiers all VOLUNTEERED! but he's FOR abortion, for which no child has ever volunteered. and more americans (4,500) die every day in abortion than have died in this war in over a year.

i have no hangups re: tolerance either... because anything can be taken too far, and respecting differences certainly has been taken to irrational limits. everyone really knows that there's a fine line between tolerance and sheer stupidity. anyone who talks of tolerating someone's belief that innocent american kids are biological fodder for the garbage disposal should be asked if they would sit down to lunch with a kkk member or timothy mcveigh just because that person was nice in every other way. i mean REALLY... can you see yourself sitting down to dine with arthur henderson or james mckinney (matt shepherd's malevolent killers) because you're a nice liberal who respects and tolerates all personal beliefs?

and let me just outline this in scarlet neon: kerry is AGAINST gay marriage but FOR birthing a late-term baby up to his head and then aspirating his brain while his tiny little body writhes in pain. the guy thinks gay marriage is worse than that and so takes a stand. go suck on a general foods international coffee and think about that for a minute or two.

my opinion:

kerry is a flipping monster, and if he wins the presidency it will be a horrific day for american women and children. and don't even get me started on edwards. can you see kerry getting assinated and leaving that inexperienced rakehel in the hotseat??? shudder.

love and partisan gnomes,
me"

Can you say, "Sorry he asked"?

:: ashli 6:04 PM # ::
...