River Valley Blogs

Kenneth W Krause to Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 2:28 PM:

" I went into more detail on another blog addressing your arguements, but it is abhorrent that in a so-called civilized society we allow the barbaric, systematic slaughter of our most vulnerable members. Your statement that women are inherently unequal and therefore need the right to kill in order to become equal is itself sexist and chauvanistic. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on May 23, 2008 11:35 AM:

" Again, Darrall, you need to clarify what we are discussing. Is it aborion on demand or abortion in cases where it is necessary to save the mothers life? Two different discussions. On one hand, no one should be required to sacrifice his or her life for another. On the other hand, no one should be allowed to arbitrarily kill another. "

To Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 11:29 AM:

" Re 10:12am post. Aren't we all? By your logic, then, there should be no laws against murder. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 10:17 AM:

" So Planet Stasiak: Given the choice between the life of the fetus and that of the woman, the woman must die for the fetus? Since the fetus cannot survive without her until birth, I will choose the woman over the fetus everytime making her choice for life more consistent than yours. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 10:12 AM:

" BTW, fetuses are not so innocent. They were conceived in sin and when born are born of sin. And it is that sin that they carry with them regardless of Christian demonination brought up into. Acknowledging this will permit them to carry their own crosses, even if they die prematurely. "

Planet Stasiak to Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Darrall, you are becoming a parody of yourself. If this was really "male sexism", all women would oppose the legality of abortion. This isn't even close to being true. In fact, women are more likely to be pro-life than men. So, there goes that theory. Also, giving ANYONE any rights is denying other people theirs. If you have the right to not be killed, that takes away any right I would have to kill you. So, yes, giving the fetus the right to not be killed would be taking away a womans right to kill it. Which is how it should be. "

To Darrall wrote on May 23, 2008 9:05 AM:

" I think you need to do some research on the very early and most influential feminists thoughts regarding abortion. It may be an eye-opener for you, given your position. Also, if abortion were made illegal, a woman would still have control over her health and body. But, just like a man, that control would stop when harm to another would occur. Another thing to think about: if you break down your arguements, in your eyes a woman will NEVER be equal to a man, simply because she has the ability to become pregnant. Even if she is allowed to terminate a pregnancy, that is still something a man will never have to go through. It is very unfortunate that you can't see that if we allow any of our citizens to arbitrarily kill our most vulnerable members of society, none of us are truly free or equal. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 12:16 AM:

" One last thought: Giving fetuses any rights is denying women's theirs. Fetuses cannot survive without women, but women can survive without them! Since women precede fetuses, fetuses shall not receive rights and like children have who have but limited rights, women must have the right to life ahead of children or fetuses. Whether its God's law or mankind's principle of children are better seen and not heard from, there will always be limitations on children and evenmoreso on fetuses. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 23, 2008 12:08 AM:

" Cage Fighter, your male sexism shows. If a woman has no control over the consequences to her health or body, she becomes nothing more than a male's dominance to serve him. Unless she can control her health care without interference from others including the government, she is a slave to men and their kind. Women are not here to serve men any longer. They are entitled to equality like men of any race are. We will continue to disagree, but I will make sure women will continue to be treated equally before the law. "

To Darrall wrote on May 22, 2008 4:37 PM:

" There is a poster on these blogs who posts as "Bugs Raplin". He is not religious, in fact he is anti-religion most of the time. He has stated numerous times he opposes abortion for moral reasons, not religious reasons. Do not the laws you agree with restrict freedom? Killing, rape, stealing? Well, people who think abortion should be illegal simply feel the unborn should receive protection under the law. Sorry you disagree. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 22, 2008 4:11 PM:

" You expressed your opinion, but did nothing to correct my viewpoint. The fact remains, your beliefs also restrict real freedom. But, BECAUSE they are YOUR beliefs, you are more accepting of them restricting freedom. I am not suggesting punishing women for their sex. I am simply taking the position that they, because of their sex, should not be allowed to punish others. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 22, 2008 2:02 PM:

" No Cage Fighter, I wish to correct your viewpoint. It is the problem with religious people who view the commandment concerning the killing issue who are changing the rules. Murder is murder whether in self defense or not. Jesus said turn the other cheek, if you die your reward is in heaven at the right hand my Father, etc. So as a result, now you wish to advocate war and attack others while punishing women for their sex. Women didn't choose to be women in most cases, and those that do have difficulty bearing children. And they are persecuted by religious people too. I see no benefit in religion today because it restricts real freedom. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 21, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Thanks for the response. I did reply on the other board. You believe some killing is wrong but not other killing. You believe the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be selectively enforced. Your view does represent a form of religious submission, even though you don't refer to it as such. Your belief that certain forms of killing are wrong is imposed on others daily through our laws against murder. You are restricting the freedom of those who wish to harm others. Same reason I believe abortion should be illegal. If "religious submission" applies to my views, they also apply to your views. "

Darral Faas wrote on May 21, 2008 12:15 PM:

" To Cage Fighter: I believe in freedom and laws promoting that over religious submission as it seems you do. You can read my response post at our original site of discussion. I hope this answers your question. "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 20, 2008 9:36 AM:

" Well, I didn't use the name "cage fighter",so looking through the record books won't help you. But, i dropped enough hints that BrianGSmith now knows who I am. I wish to remain anonymous to the masses, so hopefully he will practice discretion. By the way, have you figured out yet that all of our laws are people imposing their beliefs on other people? "

Darral Faas wrote on May 17, 2008 9:02 PM:

" Hey Cage Fighter: When did you ever wrestle? I go back a few decades and don't recall you being on any team I was a part of? Let me know what year(s) you wrestled and what school you wrestled for. Just for old memories sake! "

Michael Welch Where The Elite Meet In La Crosse... wrote on May 17, 2008 12:16 PM:

" There was (is still?) an old cafe on Main street in La Crosse called 'The Elite -- Where The Elite Meet!' Now I wonder what that means hmmm? OUR customers are intellectuals with ivy league educations? Rich folks? Disdain guns and bibles 'cuz they hire their killing and God works for them? The implication of 'elite' is that folks are somehow 'special' (if you eat at OUR place!) or THINK they are. The current government of the US certainly has an elitist attitude about the public's right to know about torture, extreme rendition and the conditions at 'Guantanemara' as W calls it. Does Obama make YOU feel 'small' for voting for the Bungler-in-Chief -- well maybe you ought to feel so... "

the definition of terms wrote on May 16, 2008 6:23 PM:

" does not reside in college dictionaries. the definition of terms resides in popular conception. that's why they update dictionaries. so harsch, welch, and mr. smith can cling to their lonely 1960's version of what an elitist or a liberal is, but the majority of people (popular conception) know exactly what elitist and liberal is, and barack hussein obama is both. if these are truely great and noble terms, then i truely hope obama makes many speeches proclaiming his elitist liberalism. "

Harsch on Going There wrote on May 16, 2008 4:00 PM:

" One of the most fun aspects of this blog is watching for the lack of understanding of common English terms (elitism, appeasement), the repetition of recent pop cliches (you really 'want to go there'? You mean on Oprah?), and especially the particularly electronic medium dementia gleaned from obsessions like 'Cage Fighter' has with Brian G. Smith, as if this cyber ghost is the only one who sees the wallflower at the dance. Mister Smith, there's no point in arguing about who is elitist with someone who doesn't know what elitism is. "

Cage Fighter and Elitism wrote on May 16, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Brian, do you really want to go there? Has Barack Hussein Obama made MANY elitist comments or has he not? I know jock sniffers who have a bruised ego and lie about their athletic exploits may argue, but come on! How can you say BHO is not an elitist? "

Elitism wrote on May 16, 2008 2:24 PM:

" How funny it is to have Bush supporters come out of the woodwork and speak of Elitism...My God..Bush was always a loser but due to his connections, his Father, his elitist stature he was accepted into shee-shee- prep schools ...Yale and Harvard....Ain't no people more elitists than Republicons....Osama is a black kid who was raised on foodstamps....calling him elitists shows the true depths of ones IGNORANCE. We are surrounded by dummies. - BrianGSmith "

re Nrthnjewl wrote on May 16, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Because when you mention sin you think of evil. When you think of evil you think of Barack Hussein Obama and those who blindly support him. "

Nrthnjewl wrote on May 16, 2008 10:02 AM:

" wow. How did you guys go from Forbes list of sin-cities to arguing about Barack Obama? "

To Ok I looked it up wrote on May 16, 2008 8:36 AM:

" What was different about the bill in Illinois? How was the bill in Illinois unconstitutional? Sorry, I call shenanigans. Thank you for at least acknowledging he did speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Speaking against this act shows he supports infanticide. "

Tess Trueheart wrote on May 16, 2008 7:23 AM:

" Johnny, you ever notice that Mr. Hussein Obama gets away with more faux pas, elitism and general disregard for the American citizen than anyone in modern history? The last time the press so wrapped itself in a political leader, we ended up with rallies in a German city named Nuremberg. (Though some darn good movies by Leni Riefenstahl, right Jimmy?) "

BrianGSmith wrote on May 16, 2008 5:12 AM:

" Awash with the liars and the lying......the vein popping nutties repeating tiresome and totally unproven and libelous scree. Tis' obvious considering the emptiness of their party and philosophy.....arguing in support of humiliatingly failed policies and embarassing terror attacks on our land is often difficult and unrewarding work for the Bush apologists. "

Dear Johnny Hobo wrote on May 16, 2008 5:07 AM:

" There is a bus coming your way. - BrianGSmith "

SHUT UP ALL OF YOU wrote on May 15, 2008 7:44 PM:

" All your retarded political bickering is just pathetic. You all need to GET LIVES. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on May 15, 2008 5:04 PM:

" First Barrack Obama threw full-term, viable infants under the bus, but I can't stand kids, so I didn't object. Next he threw his racist grandma under the bus, but my granny is already dead, so I didn't object. Then he threw his racist Pastor under the bush, but I hate a windbag, so I didn't object. Then... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on May 15, 2008 4:52 PM:

" Re 3:25pm, your childlike naivete is endearing. Yes, we would like to think medical professionals do the right thing, but that is simply not the case. The Hippocratic Oath is violated each time they perform an abortion. "First, do no harm." To assume they wouldn't necessarily kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion is to ignore reality. The fact Obama spoke against this should tell us all we need to know. "

To To Surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 4:41 PM:

" So which is it? Is Barack Hussein Obama speaking out against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act a reality, or a "figment of some anonymous bloggers imagination"? Every day, the story seems to change.... "

OK I looked it up wrote on May 15, 2008 4:29 PM:

" I still don't see how you can claim Obama spoke in favor of infanticide. He spoke of the unconstitutionality of the bill in Illinois. He noted that state law in Illinois already protected children born after botched abortions. The law, which did not pass, was an end run around Roe. It was different from the federal law, which Obama said he would have supported, because the federal law was carefully crafted to pass constitutional muster. If you want to call out someone with a specious charge of infanticide how about President Bush who started an illegal war that has killed thousands of babies? "

To Surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 3:25 PM:

" There HAS been intelligent discourse on BAIPA and you have failed to comprehend it. BAIPA was red meat for you lunatics and had no medical legitimacy whatsoever--doctors and other medical professionals DO do the right thing. After the anonomously inspired complaints to HSS Sec Levitt in 2005, BAIPA was expanded to include "withholding of medical treatment" which means, my dim little friend, that valuable hospital resources MUST be expended to make a non-viable fetus into a machine-supported lifeform--whether aborted intentionally or not. What THIS means, is that a doomed baby, instead of being allowed to expire in the arms of his sobbing parents, will now be yanked away and hooked up to life-support. That Obama may have had the courage to realize that, INCREASES my respect for him. "
"

To Two Twelve PM Poster wrote on May 15, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Try googling Obama and Born Alive Infant Protection Act. "

Hey Surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Can you provide a quote that shows how Obama has talked against the Born Alive Act? Since the law passed 98-0 and passed before he was a Senator, I'd like to know what he said and when. "

How does using Barack Hussein Obamas name.... wrote on May 15, 2008 1:22 PM:

" hinder the cause to save the lives of the pre-born or new born? Barack Hussein Obama's actions (his votes) does more harm to the newly born or pre-born than simply stating his given name.

"

Surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 1:17 PM:

" To 12:26pm-You don't understand. Barack Hussein Obama does not only support infanticide against the unborn through abortion. He takes it a step further-he supports infanticide against babies already born(hence, The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, of which he was the only Senator to speak out against). Also, I only used his middle name once, not continually. Having said that, I reject the notion that using anyones middle name has anything to do with the pro-life cause, or any other cause. "

Now look sweetie wrote on May 15, 2008 12:27 PM:

" I don't think having a "tummytuck" is vain. It is an economic thing as I don't have to buy new clothes "

re surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I am against abortion. Your continuing use of Obama's middle name is hurting the pro-life cause. You look like a fool, and it hides your noble pro-life cause. "

Michael Welch Provoking Some Ruminations On Arizona... wrote on May 15, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Gee: Brian Smith can ruin a whole city -- what power! I searched for Phoenix but it made none of the lists apparently. Arizona has always seemed to me (I grew up in 'the valley' as we always call it from 1951 to 1962 before coming to La Crosse) a state apart, meaning somewhat overlooked as a 'desert' but then snow fell on the Mogollon rim, Mingus mountain and the San Francisco peaks in northern Arizona the other day. The American western film is of course the most iconic entertainment product of Hollywood and much was filmed in AZ and much more deals with Arizona history -- Cochise, Geronimo, Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Texas John Slaughter were all erstwhile 'Arizonans' in a sense. The state however is rather 'modest' or 'shy' in a way so perhaps it has a virtuous aspect?... "

Dan M. wrote on May 15, 2008 11:21 AM:

" East Dubuque? You from that area? I lived in Dubuque for about 10 years. "

San Francisco sins and Obama wrote on May 15, 2008 9:48 AM:

" "Salt Lake City took the prize for Americas vainest city, with San Francisco close (on it's) behind." I think San Francisco is known for another sin that Jimmy is alluding to here. It also reminds me of when Barack Hussein Obama was attending an ultra rich elitist outing telling San Francisco liberals that people in small Mid Western towns are racist and hate those different from themselves because they have been clinging to their religion and guns in hard times. Of course Barry O. would know this because of all of his years living in Hawaii and going to elitist Ivy league colleges. "

To Johnny H from Jimmy wrote on May 15, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Thanks, Johnny. I will. "

Johnny Hobo wrote on May 15, 2008 9:27 AM:

" That might be the first time (and last) that I see Salt Lake City and San Francisco in the same sentence. Speaking of seven deadly sins, Jimbo, you should check out VH-1's series on the Sexual Revolution. Produced by the Sundance Channel (an off-branch of Bobby Redford's usually forgettable film fest,) it is a somewhat balanced look at the what Alvin Toffler labeled "future shock" in relation to gender roles and indentity. "

Surfer wrote on May 15, 2008 9:17 AM:

" These are deadly sins, to be sure. What was the title of that movie, I believe with Brad Pitt? The one about the 7 deadly sins, with the head in the box? Was it "Seven"? Anyway, the most deadly sin seems to be the outspoken support of infanticide by Barack Hussein Obama. I have seen the arguements back and forth and read the infamous post on the Chris Wallace blog, and there is definitely something to this. Why would he be the only Senator to speak out against The Born Alive Infant Protection Act? This is quite troubling, no matter what your politics are. "

Bugs Raplin wrote on May 15, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Did East Dubuque make the list? "

Cage Fighter wrote on May 15, 2008 9:04 AM:

" LaCrosse should have been number one in envy and sloth in the mid-80's, solely due to BGS's exploits(or lack thereof)on the HS wrestling mat. As documented on other blogs, he portrays himself as having been this unbeatable wrestler, when in reality he was beaten in a dual meet and in an invitational by yours truly, and I was probably average. His childish fits when losing, and claiming losses as wins, was probably due to his bruised ego as a child, his envy of real wrestlers, and his sloth(not working hard enough in practice). Very sad state of affairs. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »