Attorney general asks DOJ to expedite voter ID review
Justice Department Investigates Pennsylvania Voter ID Law
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Goes to Court
Viviette Aplewhite v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (pdf)
Libor Scandal Shows Many Flaws in Rate-Setting
The tiny fraction of Americans who will decide the 2012 election
The Iceberg Theory of Campaign Contributions: Political Threats and Interest Group Behavior (pdf)
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: A look ahead
Video: Day 2 reveals shocking scale of storm's destruction
Video: 'May 20' takes new meaning for Oklahoma
Video: Safe rooms prove effective defense against tornadoes
Video: Busy time for news beyond tornado tragedy
Video: Tea party seizes on IRS scandal as investigations, ineptitude perpetuate outrage
Video: Estimates give Moore sad distinction
Video: More from Moore
Leave a Comment:
Yes, when is TRMS going to address this story?
Tonya Reaves, 24, died after hemorrhaging during cervical dilation and evacuation -- a kind of second-trimester abortion -- and an intrauterine pregnancy late Friday night, Cook County medical examiners said.
Reaves was transported via ambulance from a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic to Northwestern Memorial Hospital at about 11:00 a.m. Friday, medical examiners said. She was pronounced dead about 12 hours later, at 11:20 p.m.
Is President Obama going to address the issue? Good question, "Does Ms Reaves look a lot like your daughters Mr President?
Strict abortion laws don't kill innocent people, Abortions Do!
Is the HHS Mandate going to protect Catholic Hospitals from all litigation if this happens at one of their hospitals? This could well be one reason why Catholic hospitals (The US Catholic Bishops) do not want to comply with the Affordable Health Care law and the HHS mandate!
Is Rev Sharpton going to have the twin sister of Ms Reaves on his program? Is he going to call for an investigation into the matter? Is he going to hold a "rally"?
Will "Dr" Maddow have the deceased' family on her program to discuss the issue? Or coddle some Planned Parenthood rep through an "interview". Objective journalism or subjective reporting.
Are these questions & the Reaves story going to be swept under the msnbc "rug"?
If so, and you talk about Penn State's cover up!
Inquiring minds want to know........
Can you provide a reliable link to that story? One that isn't on an anti-choice website? Also, can you prove that this is a common circumstance? (I'll save you time: you can't.)
People die everyday from complications of surgery. That is a fact. To capitalize on ONE incident is sort of odd. Do you know the cause of death ? Have you seen the coroners report ? Doesn't this come off as 'sensational' reporting ? Tickled those emotions, huh ?
I bet, that in the same 24 hour period, at least one child died from a drunk driver. Where is THAT story ? Dead is dead... sorry to be so blunt, but it's true.
Trying to get folks to jump on a bandwagon based only on hard emotions IS THE TEAPARTY way. It's the only hold they have on people. Since logic and truth un-do most of the Teaparties plans, they only have hype, fear and heavily targetted incidents to fall back on.
Please go sell your drivel elsewhere...
@Irish
Chicago Tribune article
In your post you stated:
This does not appear to be a direct quote. In the Chicago Tribune a statement reads:
Please note that this appears to be a very rare - but tragic - occurrence.
@maphi,
I am not sure given it's established connections ( the Guttenmacher Institute, a pro abortion rights group that focuses on sexual and reproductive health research") that I would be prone to grant such an institution great credence when it comes to statistical fact finding. Seems they have a horse in this race and to go further with that anaology, could have a jockey holding back the reigns a little when it comes to facts and figures. Not to mention the monetary attachments and obligations contained there-in. That being said, I did copy the exact excerpt from the ABC news source online, their wording verbatum not my own. I guess the Chicago Tribune may have worded it differently.
I THINK (that's for Noah) we as a society in measure of such incidents may have an overly insensitive tendency to trivialize matters because as you suggest such things appear to be very rare. Guess a viable argument would be, so is a Stand your Ground Law death very rare. But that didn't keep msnbc from running with it every day for weeks. I honestly think that's a fair comparison.
One other example would be this: How many daughters get refused holy communion at their mother's funeral by a Catholic Priest because they advised the priest before the mass that they were practicing Buddism and they are in a lesbian partnership? Enough to have it on TRMS.
TRMS does devote a large portion of the programing to "reproductive rights & issues". Would you say somewhere around 25-30% on avg per month? Then, perhaps a review of this story. An honest investigation of the matter and an earnest debate of how this could, regardless the rare occurance, be avoided. This is the highest Women's Health Issue I would contend, Life and Death of the woman/patient. If this was your daughter or granddaughter if applicable, or Noah's or grumpy's, would I be asked to take my drivel elsewhere? Would this ONE very rare occurance be of the same minor interest or concern.
Have a good morning......
Yes sir I can do what you ask.
1) I copy & pasted from ABC News dot com.
2) Yes. It occurs everytime an abortion is executed or completed. A human being dies. 60 million times since 1973.
Let me ask you.
Is msnbc a reliable source?
Is ABC news an "anti choice site"?
Is such news as the Martin-Zimmerman Stand your Ground story a common circumstance?
Are abortion clinic doctors murders a common circumstance?
Like you, I could ask numerous or just a few questions the likes of which I already have predeposed answers to. That, on your part, is disengenuous. On my part it would intellectually dishonest. You ask questions that you are completely ill disposed to hear anything but what you already designed as the "only" answers. That is the definition of a "closed mind". But it also reveals someone who is overly defensive about their views on certain subjects and could be uncertain about the veracity of their claims and or views/opinions on a particular topic. So you design and fashion your objections or questions through inquiries that are ordered by pre determined answers self composed in an orderly manner as to defend the only possible answer as "truth". In other words, you are afraid that someone will defeat your argument thus leaving you to well in your closed minded subjective limitations. Look at your dishonesty. You cannot even call it what it is. Abortion. The ending of a pregnacy by removing a human life from the womb of it's mother. That, is cowardly. No, you escape all incredulity by using kinder happy talk speech, "pro choice" "reproductive rights".
But the post is not about who's right, pro life or pro abortion, It's will msnbc and TRMS show talk about this issue as it regards the victim and her family. Please, stick to the point. Less we get side tracked by some obscured vison which is only remotely associated with the topic at hand.
By all means let us avoid the issue of voter suppression. Let us move past the tax rate versus GDP growth. Let us instead jump on some story about a supposed botched abortion--well we could tie this to the health care issue somehow.
Your #1 might be right; I have yet to see a link from you.
Your #2 is wrong. Until it can survive outside the mother's body, it is not human. And there's no way you can prove otherwise without resorting to mythology. As for the point, I feel no need to stick to a derailment you yourself created in your inability to actually deal with the subject of the show.
Irish-
There is no such thing as a "reliable" source of information. Period.
That being said, it's up to the individual to "be responsible for your own thinking and actions". I personally support ideals that are far more left than right- as I see more truth coming from the left and more lies and manipulative crap from the right. It's MY opinion and I vote it every time.
Folks really need to look at the big picture and stop getting so locked-up in emotions and hype. Read every source. THINK (I know it hurts..)
This is what gets me going-- "a person that is say, 58 or 59, who hasn't got a pot to piss in - will vote Repub over abortion, when the T-pubs have made it clear (in spades) that the Soc Security and Medicare you will need to survive- will be gone, gone gone.. they vote Repub anyway... "
Why ?
Four years ago I had a large Golden pot to piss in. Now, after 4 years of Obama, I am pissing into a 2 year old dixie cup with it's edges curled over.
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
NO!
GW Bush, Miss me yet? YES!
Considering Obama has made things better for us all, if you're telling the truth about going downhill, methinks you pissed it all away yourself. But of course you aren't, so it's all good.
So, IrishPat7, I find you to be an interesting person. Not interesting in the same way as I would find what George Will or Bill Kristol, both of whom do a much better job of defending a pro-life stance than you. I find you interesting in the same way America finds the Kardashians interesting, or a 5 year old finds frying ants with a magnifying glass interesting.
You're angry ... we get it. We're angry, too! The difference between us and you is that we're not gullible. We scrutinize things, we don't accept them as given. There's this thing called the genetic fallacy. It's basically where people appeal to the source of the information for it's veracity, rather than the substance and context of the information. You commit this fallacy twice in your posts. The first time is in your parenthetical comment about the Guttermacher Institute, the second time is your comment with regards to ABC News.
That's not to say that the source of the information is completely irrelevant, it's just to say that you cannot use the source as the only means of either discrediting or verifying your claims. You do just that. Twice.
I don't begrudge you your anger. I don't even hold your personal politics in disdain ... I don't agree with them, but reasonable people can disagree. However, reasonable people can only disagree reasonably. What I really take exception to your utter disregard for reason.
I take exception to a group of people with a similar disregard for reason hijacking the entire political process. Whether or not you're representative of this particular group, I can't assert. However, what I can say is this. You're arguments lack reason. Nobody here is listening to you, not because they disagree with the substance of what you're trying to say, but because what you say lacks substance.
You make claims which don't have any substance at all. Your statement about a golden pot to piss in is just hyperbole. It's the rhetorical equivalent of screaming at the top of your lungs in frustration. You and I agree that we're not better off than we were four years ago. However, we disagree as to the reasons why. Blaming Obama entirely for where we are now economically isn't fair, it isn't rational. The economic collapse is a complex situation, and I have a feeling that you have a problem with complexity in general.
I do have one final series of questions for you, and they're not entirely rhetorical. Are you seeking some sort of emotional vindication through your comments here? You do realize that you're not likely to get a sympathetic response from those who normally comment on this particular site, right? And from the tone of your comments, I don't think you're necessarily trying to persuade anybody here to abandon their beliefs. So what is your aim? What is your motivation? Is this some sort of martyrdom act to establish your pro-life street cred? Are you going to your friends and saying "Look at me, I really took it to those murdering pro-choice bastards!" I'm only asking because that's what it looks like, and I have this nasty habit of not accepting things for what they appear to be.