This is really funny.
First, here’s the real Barbara Boxer.
She’s commonly known as the least intelligent senator in the Senate, but Patty Murray might be the dumbest now.
Now watch this ad from a former Democrat.
Ha! That’s pretty funny.
All posts by Wintery Knight
Would Ted Strickland or John Kasich be a better governor of Ohio?
Here’s a clip of Ted Strickland giving a speech to his Democrat supporters.
Here’s the transcript of Ted Strickland’s speech from the Weekly Standard.
Excerpt:
“The Republican party has been overtaken by the zealots, by the extremists, by the radicals … and they don’t seem to like Ohio very much… And quite frankly they act like they don’t like America very much. They want to change our Constitution. They want to change Medicare. They want to change labor rights. They want to change this country in fundamental ways.”
Does Ted Strickland encourage businesses to remain in Ohio and hire workers in Ohio?
Let’s see:
Wow. 400,000 jobs lost in Ohio while Strickland was governor? He sounds as competent at encouraging job creation as his fellow Democrat Barack Obama.
Ted Strickland raised taxes on citizens of Ohio by 840 million dollars. He thinks he knows how to spend your money better than you do.
Social Issues
I wonder how Ted Strickland is on social issues?
Life News says:
In June of last year, Strickland upset pro-life Ohio residents by using his line-item veto to axe the section of the $1.3 billion funding bill banning state funds for cloning human beings.
Mike Gonidakis, the director of Ohio Right to Life, told LifeNews.com at the time, “By vetoing a ban on using taxpayer funds for human cloning, Ted Strickland has demonstrated that he supports treating human life as a commodity.”
“Most Ohioans don’t share Governor Strickland’s cavalier disregard for the value of human life and they should not be forced to pay for its creation, exploitation and destruction in cloning research,” Gonidakis said.
In March 2007, Strickland feuded with pro-life advocates over his budget proposal that eliminated the $500,000 the state normally spends annually on encouraging kids to practice abstinence.
The governor said he would not apply for any more federal funds for abstinence education for future budgets.
In February 2007, Strickland would not fight to save an Ohio law that protects women from the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug which has killed seven women in the United States and injured more than a thousand more. With little fanfare, Strickland quietly dropped a legal effort to salvage a law that puts safety limits on the drug.
The Ohio state legislature previously approved a bill to bring the use of the abortion pill in Ohio in line with Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
During his tenure in Congress, Strickland had a strong pro-abortion voting record while Kasich compiled a strongly pro-life record.
Ohio Right to Life today announced its endorsement of a slate of pro-life candidates seeking elected office statewide. The pro-life organization picked Rob Portman as its endorsed candidate for the U.S. Senate and named John Kasich as its endorsed candidate for governor.
[…]Marshal Pitchford, the chairman of the Ohio Right to Life Society Board of Trustees said the pro-life movement in Ohio “is fortunate to have experienced and highly qualified pro-life candidates seeking the state’s executive offices.”
“John Kasich had an outstanding pro-life voting record during his career in Congress,” he said. “His running mate, Mary Taylor, is an articulate advocate of the right to life movement. As Governor and Lt. Governor, they will reflect the common sense and common decency of the people of Ohio.”
And he’s also lousy on traditional marriage and the rights of children to be raised by a mother and a father. He was opposed to the Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, and opposed to banning gay adoption in D.C. He’s a left-wing radical on social issues. Just like Barack Obama.
Right now, the Ohio governor race is a toss-up. I recommend that all my Ohio readers get out and vote for Kasich on election day.
n June of last year, Strickland upset pro-life Ohio residents by using his line-item veto to axe the section of the $1.3 billion funding bill banning state funds for cloning human beings.
Mike Gonidakis, the director of Ohio Right to Life, told LifeNews.com at the time, “By vetoing a ban on using taxpayer funds for human cloning, Ted Strickland has demonstrated that he supports treating human life as a commodity.”
“Most Ohioans don’t share Governor Strickland’s cavalier disregard for the value of human life and they should not be forced to pay for its creation, exploitation and destruction in cloning research,” Gonidakis said.
In March 2007, Strickland feuded with pro-life advocates over his budget proposal that eliminated the $500,000 the state normally spends annually on encouraging kids to practice abstinence.
The governor said he would not apply for any more federal funds for abstinence education for future budgets.
In February 2007, Strickland would not fight to save an Ohio law that protects women from the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug which has killed seven women in the United States and injured more than a thousand more. With little fanfare, Strickland quietly dropped a legal effort to salvage a law that puts safety limits on the drug.
The Ohio state legislature previously approved a bill to bring the use of the abortion pill in Ohio in line with Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
During his tenure in Congress, Strickland had a strong pro-abortion voting record while Kasich compiled a strongly pro-life record.
MUST-HEAR: Glenn Peoples debates Arif Ahmed on God and morality
Another good Unbelievable debate between theist Glenn Peoples and atheist Arif Ahmed.
Details:
Torturing children for fun – is that absolutely wrong?
The Moral Argument for God states that there are such things as objective moral facts, and that objective moral facts must have an immaterial source – namely God. Therefore God Exists… Simple right?
However, atheist Cambridge Philosopher Arif Ahmed disagrees with the first two premises. He debates with New Zealand’s Christian philosopher Glenn People’s on whether the argument proves the existence of God.
So, are moral beliefs nothing more than our “preferences”? What do we do with the intuition that certain things are absolutely wrong? Are atheists who affirm moral facts but deny God, being inconsistent?
I would not really characterize Glenn as an orthodox “Christian” philosopher, although he claims to be – because he doesn’t hold to some beliefs that are essential. E-mail me if you want more info and links to his statements. But he makes good arguments for theism.
Summary
Are there moral facts?
Glenn Peoples:
- Here is my argument:
- If there are moral facts, then they have a basis that is either supernatural or natural
- If there are moral facts, then there basis is not natural
- Therefore, if there are moral facts, then there basis is supernatural
- A supernatural person is the most plausible way to think of the the basis of moral facts
- If there are moral facts, then the best way to think about their basis is that they are grounded by a supernatural person
Arif Ahmed:
- There are no moral facts
- There is no sensory evidence for moral facts
- I would only accept sensory evidence for the existence of moral facts
- Each person has preferences for how to treat other people
- I campaign for things I personally prefer
- So morality for me is doing whatever I want
Glenn Peoples:
- Well, that is not moral conduct, that’s “satisfaction conduct”
- You are doing what satisfies you, but it’s not normative
- There is no ought there
- It’s not prescriptive of what you should do, it’s just descriptive of what you do
Arif Ahmed:
- I would interfere with other people’s preferences if I didn’t prefer them
Glenn Peoples:
- What do you mean you “ought to” impose your preferences on other people
Arif Ahmed:
- I do this thing I prefer and this thing I prefer and this thing I prefer
- I do certain things because I like the way I feel when I do them
- Nothing defines moral standards because there are no moral standards
Glenn Peoples:
- On Arif’s view, it is impossible that anyone’s preference could be “wrong”
- Each person’s preferences are supreme and cannot be judged on Arif’s view
- On his view, someone who tortures people for fun is as justified as someone who doesn’t because both act on the basis of preferences
Arif Ahmed:
- We can’t prove the existence of moral facts because only things that can be perceived with the senses are real
Glenn Peoples:
- But even sensory inputs cannot be proven to be reliable using the senses
Is Glenn’s argument valid?
Arif Ahmed
- Well, what if I arbitrarily assert that harm is morally wrong without sensory evidence for that moral fact, thus breaking my own rule about what counts as true
- that makes me look like less of sociopath than before, right?
- so how about that?
- even if there were moral facts, God doesn’t have to be the cause of them
Glenn Peoples:
- If there are moral obligations, they must be owed to a person, not to a state of affairs
Arif Ahmed:
- Human beings don’t have any proper function, no way we ought to be
- Each person just decides what they want
Glenn Peoples:
- What about purpose, is there any reason why we are here?
- On atheism, you would have to say no
Arif Ahmed:
- An atheist could have a purpose for your life in an accidental universe without a designer
- I don’t believe there is a purpose to life though
- But you can choose social justice, or yoga, or vegetarianism, or video games and have meaning in life
- And an arbitrary, narcissistic, illusory purpose is just as valid as an objectively true purpose (and as healthy!)
- It’s very liberating to be able to make up your own arbitrary purpose and arbitrary preferences
- You can even pretend they are significant and meaningful and that you are a good person (but they aren’t!)
Glenn Peoples:
- Just to be fair, the idea of objective meaning and objective purpose does require creativity and work – it’s not a cop out
