Michael Stuart Kelly

LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

Recommended Posts

LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

First there was Northam's support for killing babies born after a botched abortion (making sure to resuscitate the baby first).

"Would be kept comfortable" and "then a discussion would ensue" about killing a baby is awfully considerate, doncha think?

:) 

The Internet and fake news media melted down over that one.

But now this:

Flashback: Ralph Northam Decried Ed Gillespie’s ‘Racist Rhetoric and Fearmongering’

You can read it, but the tweets in the article say it all:

Northam in the campaign:

Now Northam in office, after some people started digging:

Blackface and KKK?

Dayaamm!

Now the meltdown is at Defcon 5.

Ralph Northam's reputation just aborted, but... it's still barely alive.

So, at the very least, Northam should be "kept comfortable" while "discussion ensues" about killing his term of office as Governor and, by extension, his political career.

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In damage control mode, CNN tried to make Ralph Northam a Republican, but it didn't work.

Here's a still:

02.02.2019-05.45.png

In a more recent video where Don Lemon is blasting Northam, they fixed it and now the same clip shows a "D."

But they still tried...

They just can't help themselves, poor things...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left is pretty quiet about it. Why is that? There's a little bit of noise, but much more silence. Racism is still bad, right? And things done in the past are still unforgivable, no? Mere accusations without evidence or corroboration are enough to condemn, and to end a person's career, instantly, but even with photographic proof, if it's a lefty, we need to ponder it much longer, and consider how we might forgive?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

There are more things from the past that are not sitting well.

For instance the people who praised Northam for his anti-racism...

 

:) 

 

EDIT:

Kamala Harris's tweet from Nov. 7, 2017, is still up:

 

It says the same thing as Don Jr. quoted in case she ever takes it down.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just peeked in at social media, and the push for forgiveness is already starting. OMG, he said that he's ready to do the hard work of earning our trust again. Oh, that just melts my heart. It makes me trust him right now already. Let's not make him suffer. C'mon everybody, group hug!

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northam could turn this into a big win.  Victory from the jaws of defeat.  I don’t think Northam has it in him to pull it off, but just imagine if he could liken himself to St. Paul as the former persecutor who became an apostle.  He knows both sides, he’s been there.  As late as age 25. 

I’m thinking of a speech Obama gave about race back in early 2008 (prompted by obnoxious videos of his pastor Rev Wright), back before he’d even sealed the nomination.  He turned that into a big win.  But 10 seconds listening to Northam speak and you know he’s no Obama. 

OTOH, this is rather nice payback coming after the Kavanaugh episode, eh?  The yearbook part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the abortion part, he has to be talking about cases where the baby isn't viable.  Almost everyone is ok with late term abortions when the mother's survival is at risk, given that the baby is not going to make it.  They induce labor, and the baby sometimes lives for a while.  Imagine a case where the doctor could use every means at his/her disposal to then prolong its life, and that will stretch it out to a week at best.  As opposed to doing nothing, and it dies within hours.  A traumatizing choice.  I don't like the government sticking its nose in such a decision. 

What makes it unclear is the language of the bill, particularly where it refers to the mother's mental health.  That makes me think of this scene from Rosemary's Baby.  Imagine if Rosemary, here evidently insane, asks the doctor for an abortion.

In the movie he calls up her other doctor, they sedate her, and soon the son of Satan is born, but that's another story altogether.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

About the abortion part, he has to be talking about cases where the baby isn't viable.

Dennis,

I don't even know what that means.

How and why do you resuscitate (Northam's word) a newborn that "isn't viable"? Just so you can make it comfortable and kill it?

That's fucked up, pure and simple.

I'm not giving him a pass of reasonableness.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Northam could turn this into a big win.  Victory from the jaws of defeat.  I don’t think Northam has it in him to pull it off, but just imagine if he could liken himself to St. Paul as the former persecutor who became an apostle.

Dennis,

I actually like this idea storytelling-wise. It would be powerful. I wish more people in O-Land would learn to think in terms of using archetypes and age-old story-frames. It would certainly improve the fiction writing in the subcommunity.

2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

OTOH, this is rather nice payback coming after the Kavanaugh episode, eh?  The yearbook part.

I like this part of your post, too.

Poetic justice is the bedrock of story.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 9:32 AM, Jonathan said:

I just peeked in at social media, and the push for forgiveness is already starting. OMG, he said that he's ready to do the hard work of earning our trust again. Oh, that just melts my heart. It makes me trust him right now already. Let's not make him suffer. C'mon everybody, group hug!

J

 

IMPROVED VERSION Edit

OK, I'm in... just no groping, please!  You would not believe what liberties some old men think they can take just because a lady is 113 and still breathing. Perverts! 

Seriously, Republicans have not exactly had a week at Disney World themselves and this must be a godsend and a "thank god" moment too, that when they wanted him to become a Republican, he declined!  Enjoy, everyone.

As the above was posted on the LOLOL forum, I did not originally note that I have a problem with a lefty in blackface, bigger even than I have for righties in same because of the hypocrisy involved, a big large problematic  problem do I have with it, so I am editing this for the record, although I try not to post my problems on this forum but bear them alone, uncomplainingly, though they are crushing and many.

What kind of military school turns out lefties, anyway? The voters of Virginia should've bewared of Northam from the start!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

I don't even know what that means.

How and why do you resuscitate (Northam's word) a newborn that "isn't viable"? Just so you can make it comfortable and kill it?

That's fucked up, pure and simple.

I'm not giving him a pass of reasonableness.

Michael

Let me give you a hypothetical.  Let's say there's a healthy mother and fetus, 8 months along, and then there's a car accident.  The airbag and/or seatbelt cause an injury to the fetus, damaging its spinal cord.  The doctors determine that there's a 95% chance there'll be a miscarriage, any time in the next month.  It'll be life threatening to the mother.  Yet there's a 5% chance the baby will be born alive, but will be a quadriplegic, will need a respirator, have a life expectancy of 1 week even with all the best medical attention available, etc.  Go ahead and allow a vanishingly small chance for a miracle.  Would you object to the mother making the choice to induce labor (or do a C-section, more likely) and then not putting the baby on the respirator?   On her doctor's advice?  I imagine even the Catholic church would be ok with this, and would send a priest to do a baptism.

Should the state be involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

Let me give you a hypothetical.  Let's say there's a healthy mother and fetus, 8 months along, and then there's a car accident.  The airbag and/or seatbelt cause an injury to the fetus, damaging its spinal cord.  The doctors determine that there's a 95% chance there'll be a miscarriage, any time in the next month.  It'll be life threatening to the mother.  Yet there's a 5% chance the baby will be born alive, but will be a quadriplegic, will need a respirator, have a life expectancy of 1 week even with all the best medical attention available, etc.  Go ahead and allow a vanishingly small chance for a miracle.  Would you object to the mother making the choice to induce labor and then not putting the baby on the respirator?   On her doctor's advice? 

Dennis,

That doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

We are talking about babies being born, being put on the respirator (to be made "comfortable"). Then a "discussion" ensuing before the slaughter.

As to my own views on abortion, I have been clear over the years many times, but for the record, here goes once more. Abortion is killing a unique individual human being. I don't buy the crap view that a person is a human being only after birth, and before birth, it is nothing more than protoplasm. (Unfortunately, this was Rand's view.) A fertilized egg cannot become a giraffe or a rubber tire. It can ONLY become a more mature form of the individual as it grows.

I have a more nuanced legal view. Since the mother's body is literally being used for the environment and survival of the fetus, I hold that jurisdiction over the life of the fetus belongs to the mother, not to the state. In my perfect world, she literally and legally holds the power to determine if that individual lives or dies from slaughter. And no one would be able to touch her legally if she chose to kill it. And, yes, this would go all the way up to birth. After birth, after separation of the newborn from the mother's body, the governmental protection of individual rights kicks in, starting with the right to life.

The government, that is, the government and all forms of society, in my view, exists outside of the mother's body, not inside it.

As to influence campaigns, to me, I am not bothered by people showing how gross and serious abortion is to pregnant women to try to convince them to not have one. I'm also not bothered by pro-abortion campaigns. Morally and personally, though, I think abortion is awful. At the very least, it is serious on a taking-of-human-life level, not just a form of contraception.

Recently, I read an article by Ursula Le Guin on abortion. She claimed if she had not had an illegal abortion in the 50's, she would not have become a famous author and encountered her wonderful husband. And her marvelous and beloved three children would not have come into existence. She believes much good and love came into the world through the sacrifice of a life that was not wanted and would not have been loved. So there's that. And that is very close to Rand's view, except, according to Rand's words as I understand them, she would not have considered an abortion as a sacrifice of human life.

I do.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That doesn't have anything to do with what we are discussing.

We are talking about babies being born, being put on the respirator (to be made "comfortable"). Then a "discussion" ensuing before the slaughter.

 

That's exactly the kind of hypothetical I thought of when I tried to interpret what Northam said using the principle of charity. 

There's no way there's ever a "discussion" about taking a meat cleaver to a new-born.  Slaughter?  No doctor guided by the "do no harm" principle could do that.  Taking them off a respirator, in cases where they're going to die soon anyway, is a whole other matter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

... using the principle of charity...

Dennis,

You use the principle of charity when interpreting the words of Democrats and elitists?

Wow...

Good luck.

I recall a recent Democratic president who said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," and a whole lot of things like that. And people constantly extended the principle of charity to his words when they were ambiguous.

How did that work out for ya'?

:) 

In my world, respect is earned. I find it stupid to believe chronic liars and constantly give them the benefit of the doubt.

As to slaughter, I would never hire you for a slaughterhouse gig in a million years. You might hurt yourself and/or others. Everybody knows you never use a meat cleaver to slaughter animals. You use it to cut up carcasses.

I can just see it. Dennis takes a meat cleaver to a pig and really pisses him off. Then Dennis starts running and yelling, "Helllllp! Somebody, help!" as an enraged pig is running him down.

:) 

So... I take it you prefer nicer-sounding euphemisms for killing babies? Why? Will they be less dead with prettier words?

I don't think so...

I'm using a word like slaughter right now to keep the killing part front and center in a discussion instead of infant death being swept under the rug and kept out of sight.

After all, we want our doctors to deal with the nonviable situations in a humane manner, right?

Blech...

I prefer this way:

We find doctors who can and will slaughter live babies (humanely).

How does that sound?

It means the same thing.

Like I said, to me this is serious. I intend to keep using this kind of language. And I sincerely hope it makes people uncomfortable. Killing human life always should.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure the pressure stays on, President Trump weighed in.

and...

Bashing the Opposition Research Staff?

Dayamm!

He just poked the underbelly of the swamp creatures. Opposition Research is where they are put out to pasture. At the very least, their kids and lovers get gigs there.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

We are talking about babies being born, being put on the respirator (to be made "comfortable"). Then a "discussion" ensuing before the slaughter.

Rudy sees what I see in Northam's words.

Even more than slaughter, I like the term "cold blooded murder."

Because, after trimming away all the rationalizations, that's exactly what it is once the baby is born and breathing.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You use the principle of charity when interpreting the words of Democrats and elitists?

Wow...

Good luck.

It's that whole "do unto others" policy in practice.  It works often enough.

Note that this guy went to jail for doing to kinds of things you keep insisting Northam supports:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

You didn't see Democrats lining up to defend the guy.  In fact, they were just as condemnatory as everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Note that this guy went to jail for doing to kinds of things you keep insisting Northam supports:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Dennis,

Not Democrats in particular. (Some Dems are religious.) Progressives. The key part of that term is "progress." They do their changes by progressing gradually, not by one fell swoop. Babysteps. (That's how they got gay marriage passed. Obamacare was merely a step toward single payer. And so on.)

I don't know about inside Northam's head, but I imagine he does not publicly support Gosnell right now. That would be political suicide.

Notice, however, how he pushed the envelope in public--trying to move the Overton Window to the "humane" murder of babies and cash in on what they did in NY State.

He was moving step by step (until his racist past caught up with him).

So, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say Northam supports a system where a future Gosnell would eventually be free to do what he did all above board (without all the sloppiness and gross stuff, of course, like leaving fetus material in buckets all over the place and so on).

Have you noticed how it never goes in the other direction with Progressives? It always goes in one direction only? Their babysteps? You don't seem to want them to change direction. Why? Only people like me need to use "the principle of charity" and so on. 

Well, since those people are who you give your benefit of the doubt to, not people like me, let me use your own criteria. You said do a "do unto others" policy in practice is your way of thinking. Right?

Since Progressives NEVER reverse direction, I'll do the same. I won't reverse direction either. Do unto others and all...

And here goes. Progressives don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They are scum. They are liars. And they never got over losing eugenics as a science. Those assholes want to have the power over who lives and who dies. And I, and others like me, will not let them.

:) 

Just trying to be fair...

:) 

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, caroljane said:

OK, I'm in... just no groping, please!  You would not believe what liberties some old men think they can take just because a lady is 113 and still breathing. Perverts! 

Seriously, Republicans have not exactly had a week at Disney World themselves and this must be a godsend and a "thank god" moment too, that when they wanted him to become a Republican, he declined!  Enjoy, everyone.

Yeah, I had figured that you would have no problem whatsoever with a lefty in blackface or KKK robes, and would instead try to shift to but-what-about-my-intentional-misrepresentation-narrative-about-Trump-and-Republicans.

And I love seeing the subtlety of your mind in action: When I criticize Democrat hypocrisy, your response is to assume that your attacking Republicans is a powerful counter-argument, and that it'll really sting me badly.

Yeah, got me there, Carol. Really hurt me. I'm devastated.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gang likes murder, especially of the pure and innocent, it is an essential part of their religion. They all do it, they all have evidence of each other doing it — a big mutual blackmail society. Beside their sick beliefs that demand it, it’s a great group-cohesion technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“A CULT leader known as 'John of God' has been accused of running a sex slave farm and selling babies to highest bidder on the black market.

“Joao Teixeira de Faria was arrested a week after over 600 allegations piled against him in what prosecutors say could be the worst serial crimes case in Brazil’s history.

“Hundreds of girls were enslaved over years, lived on farms in Goias, served as wombs to get pregnant, for their babies to be sold.

“These girls were murdered after 10 years of giving birth. We have got a number of testimonies.

The Brazilian healer became a prominent spiritual figure in 2010, when Oprah Winfrey visited him and said she almost fainted during the “blissful” encounter.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8318483/john-god-cult-leader-sex-slave-farm-sold-babies/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

It's that whole "do unto others" policy in practice.  It works often enough.

Note that this guy went to jail for doing to kinds of things you keep insisting Northam supports:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

You didn't see Democrats lining up to defend the guy.  In fact, they were just as condemnatory as everyone else.

No, they most certainly were not just as condemnatory as everyone else, they were mostly silent. And no, I will not be impressed when you can produce one, two, three or ten condemnations by obscure progressives coming weeks or months after the story was a done deal anyway and the speaking out could have done and therefore meant, precisely nothing. To be clear, I heard of that Gosnell motherfucker months before he was arrested. The left had zero curiousity about the matter, zero interest in what plainly looked like a systematic cover-up of years of reports and complaints about Gosnell and his butcher shop.

No, the fact is, most of the people telling us today that MAGA hats are a problem had precisely nothing at all to say during the years when Gosnell operated his kill shack, nothing to say when the cover-up was being exposed and nothing to say when he was arrested and charged.

Michael is right, they deserve zero charity and furthermore, it is a betrayal of justice to give any to them as they have earned exactly the opposite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...