Patterico's Pontifications


Hillary Clinton Refers To Fetus As An “Unborn Person”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:16 am

[guest post by Dana]

Yesterday on Meet the Press, both Chuck Todd and Hillary Clinton made startling admissions when Todd asked the candidate when or if an “unborn child” has constitutional rights and Clinton answered:

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Of course Big Media is silent about this gaffe (or Freudian slip…). Abortion contradictions are only red meat for the MSM if there is an R after the politician’s name. After doing a quick search this morning of the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the AP, I could not find any mention of Clinton’s obvious contradiction.

Anyway, Planned Parenthood officials rebuked Clinton for giving away the beans while undermining the abortion cause:

The comment “further stigmatizes #abortion,” Ms. Arellano said in a tweet. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.”

Describing the fetus as a “person” or “child” has long been anathema to the pro-choice movement, which argues the terms misleadingly imply a sense of humanity.

In addition, the specific term “person” is a legal concept that includes rights and statuses that the law protects, including protection of a person’s life under the laws against homicide. Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a “life,” it is not yet a “person.”

Guidelines issued by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discourage pro-choice advocates from using terms such as “abort a child,” instead recommending “more accurate/appropriate” alternatives such as “end a pregnancy” or “have an abortion.”

“‘Abort a child’ is medically inaccurate, as the fetus is not yet a child,” the guide reads. …


123 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Refers To Fetus As An “Unborn Person””

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (0ee61a)

  2. Own the words, own the conversation.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  3. Cletus teh Fetus
    he never could catch a break
    not with democrats

    Colonel Haiku (15b793)

  4. 2.Own the words, own the conversation.

    That’s what PC is all about, felipe.

    Imam Hoagie ™ (e4fcd6)

  5. Trump’s comments regarding punishing women who have an abortion is based on the Left’s delusional view of how republicans think.

    Trump was only pandering to what he thinks republicans believe.

    Where did Trump get such a delusional view

    From his peers/contemporaries – The people he associates with – ie the delusional left. Hint – Trump is not a republican

    Joe - From Texas (debac0)

  6. He answered a ridiculous question from matthews, the two minute hate goes on, red queen says something crickets.

    narciso (1e413e)

  7. Hillary must be confident she has the nomination sewn up if she’s already pivoting towards the center. This was calculated. The question was planted and the answer was prepared. She is telling the Planned Parenthood lizzies “Then go vote for Cruz”; and appealing to black women, her HYUGEST constituency, most of whom are not left-wing loonies. Who are really just trying to feed their families.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. it’s easy to get caught up in the semantics

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  9. It does depend on what the meaning of “is” is.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. Greetings:

    So, if one murders an eight-month pregnant woman and the whatever also dies he’s not guilty of whatever ???

    Have I got that right ???

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  11. Not necessarily, because you can get 2 years in prison and a $100,000 fine for killing a bald eagle. F***ing Americans, they really love their animals. Their kids, not so much.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. It’s pretty weird, nk. A person under 18 cannot get their ears pierced or a tattoo without their parents’ permission.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  13. Simon Jester (#12):
    Years ago in Alabama, a young mother pushing a baby in a stroller tried to get her ears (her own ears, I mean) pierced at a mall. They told her she needed her mother’s permission, because she was only 17, but they could pierce her baby’s ears just with her permission, because the mother giving permission does not need to be 18 herself.

    Dr. Weevil (8a6312)

  14. Ear piercing, nothing. In Chicago, you cannot buy tobacco products unless you’re 21. I Trump you not.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Not to be bitchy or anything, but I can’t believe she paid $600 for that haircut.

    V the K (50ecbc)

  16. Not to be bitchy or anything, but I can’t believe she paid $600 for that haircut.

    Give her hairstylist a break: it’s tough to come up with a cut that doesn’t make her look elderly, tired, and peevish.

    JVW (9e3c77)

  17. Short in the leg and broad in the beam, shaped like a fat duckpin.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  18. I guess most of her Constitutional education from pre-law came from zombie Chief Justice Roger Taney.

    John P. Squibob (f4cd32)

  19. “Exterminated prisoners were not to be referred to as people but only as dreck.”

    -Nazi death camp uberkommando being interviewed in the holocaust film “Shoah”

    CrustyB (69f730)

  20. Even Lyin’ Hillary’s not pro-abort enough for PP. I’m pro-life, just wouldn’t change any laws to reflect it. Steady!

    @RealDonaldTrump (341ca0)

  21. What IS Trump’s position on abortion? In true Ingsoc tradition it seems to be “all of them at once.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Chief Justice Roger Taney

    Who thought that Dredd Scott v Sandford, being a 7-2 decision of the Supreme Court, settled the slavery issue once and for all, letting everyone know that a slave was property in any state. Lincoln thought otherwise.

    Coincidentally, Roe v Wade was also 7-2

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. If a women breaks the law, why should she not be punished?

    Rodney King's Spirit (8de175)

  24. It’s long been my position that regardless of where you are in the pro-choice/pro-life continuum of political views and accommodations, you can only be intellectually honest about the discussion if you’re willing to use accurate language.

    “Unborn baby” and “fetus” mean exactly the same thing. If you’re pro-choice and you can’t look someone in the eye and say, “Yes, I support the right of a woman to kill this unborn baby,” you’re not facing up to what’s going on. Likewise, if you’re pro-life and you can’t bring yourself to use the word “fetus,” or to qualify “baby” with “unborn,” again you’re not being honest with the language.

    Given the choice only between “unborn person” and “unborn baby,” Planned Parenthood — our national government-funded abortion factory — would certainly prefer the term “unborn person.” But if they could make up some entirely new non-baby-sounding word even more clinical-sounding than “fetus,” if they could instead just refer to these organisms in the womb exclusively as CMMFBs, for example (“clinical mis-moniker for baby,” that would tickle them pink. (Easter pink. Baby pink.)

    And if the fetus/unborn baby is sufficiently developed to live outside the womb if removed prior to natural birth, then in my own view, we’re talking without any question about a “person” with rights under the Constitution, including the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments — even though that viable fetus/unborn baby is still umbilical-corded and floating in his or her mother’s womb for a while longer in the natural course of events. That’s a person to the same extent that I would be if I’d been in a car accident and needed life support and medical care to recover. Partial-birth abortions are murder, plain and simple.

    @ RKS: Prior to Roe v. Wade making them all unconstitutional, state laws prohibiting abortions did not criminalize the mother’s conduct. If you want to live in a society where they think that’s appropriate, move to Saudi Arabia.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  25. While the MFM pretends that abortion is something equivalent to a good dental cleaning, even people who favor abortion rights know it’s the destruction of a potential human being. In everyone’s heart of hearts, we all know it’s a bad thing. Think it’s usually a bad idea for Republicans to demand an end to abortion, because it isn’t happening. But he putative GOP nominee, who ever it might be, should bring that point home, and ask why it’s not limited, and why everyone is forced to pay for it.As per Griswold, it’s based in an emanation of a penumbra of privacy.People on 1787 were familiar with abortion, it was hardly something new. The 1st and 2nd Amendments are black and white, pointed and explicit, right there, but the government isn’t buying us all blog spots nor handguns on demand. Though if you want the liabilities with them , you could buy worthless fishwrap like the NY Daily News or Newsweek or Time for about a buck apiece.

    Bugg (db3a97)

  26. d.c. madams lawyer is about to give pervert randy ted cruz a post natal abortion! just say no to ted the pervert cruz the black tranny lover!

    jj likes trump (f2998a)

  27. So, according to the PP view, if a woman is in labor with a full-term “fetus” and decides that, well this is a lot of trouble and the psychic pain of missing Judge Judy will scar her for life, she can order the doctors to just kill it so long as it is mostly not yet born?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. Man, the Cruz haters really are scum. #26 I’m talking to you. You make ‘feets look civil.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  29. Ignorance is not a defense for those who pursue convenience over destroying uniquely human organisms. The Dhimmicrats have been very open, even more so with BHO in office, as to what they are truly about. As Pat keeps lamenting, our problems are not mainly the political class. Our core problem is us.

    FYI: Bush v. Gore was also a 7-2 decision 🙂

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  30. Beldar,

    U wrote: Prior to Roe v. Wade making them all unconstitutional, state laws prohibiting abortions did not criminalize the mother’s conduct. If you want to live in a society where they think that’s appropriate, move to Saudi Arabia.

    So you have no problem with de-penalizing criminal behavior in this scenario. Got it.

    With respect to your comment about move to Saudia Arabia, f*** u and the straw-man you rode in on. Typical asinine lawyer nonsense and the main reason why our Political System is as messed up as it is.

    I believe ANY CITIZEN who breaks the law should have some penalty, even if a $100 fine. But thinking this through is not exactly what many Pro-Lifers want to do. Better to simply attack while trying to sounds like nice people — “she is a victim too!” Whatever.

    Please note to count me as Pro-Lifer who would put in progressively stiff penalties for abortions past the 14 day mark. From fines all the way to jail time depending on the gestation period of the child in utero. Morning after pill used properly is not an abortion in my book and no worse than tossing 1,000,000 zygotes in the toilet. Once imbedded, life begins and should be sacrosanct.

    So eiither you have laws, or you don’t. This view that somehow we are going to out law abortion while not penalizing the women’s behavior is the type of fakakakakaka thinking that leads to confusion. Moral confusion being the most problematic.

    And if you tell me “what about the man!!!” then my response is biology sucks. Deal with it ladies. Fact of life. Just like men dying sooner. No one is crying a river about that.

    Rodney King's Spirit (8de175)

  31. re Romans 13, a nation that knows not good and evil, will proscribe the former, and permit the latter,

    narciso (732bc0)

  32. @ RKS: I believe that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t contain a constitutional privacy right guaranteeing a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion legally; that is, I believe that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and their progeny are all very bad constitutional law that ought to be overruled. That would effectively return regulation of abortions, like other medical procedures, almost exclusively to the states, as was the case before Roe v. Wade. The states should be free to set their respective criminal laws based on their own citizens’ judgments, expressed through their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches of state government, however they think best.

    The fact that not a single American state chose, as a policy matter, to criminalize the mother’s conduct in soliciting an abortion tells us that there is not even a minority of states who think that’s appropriate. That was true even before Roe; it remains true after.

    It is no straw man to point out that yes, there are other cultures and countries that choose to penalize the woman who solicits the abortion. Most of them operate under Muslim sharia law. Maybe you think that was some sort of insult directed at you; it isn’t, it’s just a factually accurate observation. If you, in turn, want to live in a society that values criminalizing women for soliciting an abortion, more power to you; or if you choose to remain in the U.S., where no state would ever pass such a law, then more power to you for that.

    But don’t pretend that there’s some inconsistency within the policy judgment shared by all of us who see the mother as a victim of the actual unborn-child killer, the abortionist. Those two things are not the same, morally or legally.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  33. By the way, RKS, I’m still waiting for an apology for the “scum bag” insult. I’m giving you a huge benefit of the doubt by bothering to address you civilly after that. I’m beginning to think you don’t deserve that; prove me right, or prove me wrong.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  34. they just change the rationales, when privacy was no longer applicable, o’connor went to 14th amendment, and next time it will be global warming, this is the nature of the peculiar institution that has arisen in the last forty years,

    narciso (732bc0)

  35. They like to claim it’s a medical procedure, but then they object to it being regulated like every other medical procedure.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  36. nothing here on the blog about SCOTUS and today’s decision on counting population for redistricting?

    redc1c4 (f3e4dd)

  37. red, per your request (#38), I’ll share here something I wrote in comments to a post on Prof. Althouse’s blog about today’s 8/0 decision by Justice Ginsberg in Evenwel v. Abbott:

    The only surprise about this case was that the SCOTUS agreed to hear it to begin with. But this wasn’t an ordinary discretionary grant-of-certiarori case. Instead, it was a challenge to “the constitutionality of the apportionment of … [a] statewide legislative body” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), which requires the convening of a special three-judge court. Appeals from judgments entered by those special courts don’t go through the normal appeals process. Rather, under another special statute just for these cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1253, appeals from these three-judge panels go directly to the SCOTUS, which has mandatory rather than discretionary jurisdiction.

    In other words, due to procedural peculiarities of this sort of reapportionment case, the SCOTUS was obliged to hear and resolve this appeal on its merits — even if not a single Justice would’ve voted to hear the case under the normal standards for granting a writ of certiorari.

    The case is an interesting fluke. At most it points, via the concurrences, to a potentially open door, through which would lie much uncertainty if it really is open, and through which no state legislature is likely to ever try to walk.

    This case never had any chance of success. The plaintiffs were claiming that their constitutional rights were being infringed by the existing system: Like every other state, Texas “uses total-population numbers from the decennial census when drawing legislative districts.” These plaintiffs were claiming that the Constitution instead requires that Texas (and every other state) instead use “a voter-population baseline,” comprising only eligible voters or registered voters. That methodology would, for example, require that districts be drawn without counting of underaged citizens, with very different resulting voting districts. The plaintiffs did manage to get a pair of concurrences (from Alito & Thomas) suggesting that if, someday, some state legislature wants to try that kind of methodology, it might be okay. But nobody on the SCOTUS believed that the Constitution prohibits the total-population numbers currently used in all reapportionment (and resulting gerrymandering) everywhere.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  38. Also, re today’s 8/0 decision in Evenwel: Alito would surely have agreed, IMHO. And here, for the genuinely wonky, are links for the procedural statutes (which I omitted from that last comment, #39, to avoid “too-many-links” moderation: 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1253.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. Bah. Scalia would have agreed, I meant.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  40. The Big Talking Trump Fan Boys are always conspicuously absent on such an issue, since Donnie Good Hair has already taken nine positions on abortion.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  41. I’ll add a bit about Evenwel, because I think most of the Left’s spin on this is wrong. The very respected election law expert (but Leftie) Rick Hasen wrote, for example:

    Most importantly, in a big victory for the federal government’s position in the litigation, the Court did not say that a state can simply choose between doing total population or total voters in how district lines are drawn. Some expected that if the Court gave Texas the green light to choose, as Texas argued it had the right to do in this litigation, then in the next round of redistricting, it would have done so in order to increase the number of Republican districts in the state.

    But this amounts to saying: The Left just won a big victory because the Supreme Court refused to issue an advisory opinion saying what might be legal under some other, different set of facts than existed in this case.

    Big woo. I’m not impressed.

    Hasen goes on:

    Perhaps the most important aspect of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, and especially notable because it attracted the votes of not just the liberals but also Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, is the Court’s refusal to give Texas the green light to use total voters if it wants in the next round of redistricting. The Court simply put the issue off for another day. It is hard to stress enough what a victory this is for liberal supporters of voting rights. Many of us thought Burns already gave Texas this power. The fact that the Court leaves that issue open will serve as a deterrent for states like Texas to try to use total voters in the next round of redistricting, because it will guarantee major litigation on the question.

    Again, big woo. It’s not like there was ever any doubt that any state legislature which does try to change to apportioning based on eligible or registered voters will face a sh*tst*rm of litigation that will, necessarily, be resolved in the Supreme Court. Every bit of the “deterrence” which Hasen postulates already existed; but contrary to what Hasen argues, there now is a pretty clear roadmap (from the Scalia and Alito concurrences) in how best to attempt such a change, when and if any state legislature is otherwise inclined to do so.

    Again, the only precedential effect here is to confirm that the existing system of using total population — now used in Texas and everywhere else — is indeed constitutional. The question whether a state could switch to using registered voters remains an entirely open question, and it won’t — can’t — be resolved unless and until some state actually tries to do that.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. And as Lyle Deniston correctly observes at the indispensible SCOTUSBlog:

    Texas actually had wanted the Court to allow it to use a total population metric, but to go further and give the states explicit constitutional permission to map out districts with equal populations of voters. The Obama administration also had wanted the Court to rule that the Constitution actually required total population as the starting point for redistricting. Neither persuaded the Court to go take those further steps.

    So again: Big woo. Don’t believe the media spin that this was some great victory — or any victory at all — of the Left over the Right, or Democrats over Republicans.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  43. the woo is quite large

    happyfeet (831175)

  44. Beldar, you sound lucid when the topic isn’t Trump. There’s hope for you yet.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  45. To: All Trumpkins
    From: The Supreme Caterpillar
    RE: Prime Directive

    All conversations must be about Trump. No exceptions.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. Ya know who probably the smartest lawyer in the country is, when it comes to redistricting? And the one with the most significant first-hand experience?

    That would be Ted Cruz. But for his successful SCOTUS defense of the Texas redistricting that finally reversed Martin Frost’s mid-1990s pro-Dem gerrymander, the Texas Congressional delegation would still be majority Democrat. You like it that the GOP controls the House? Thank Ted Cruz.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. oh man moar house budgets mmm mmm can’t get enuff baybee

    happyfeet (831175)

  48. if i had to pick between a hillary and a fetus i’d pick the fetus

    happyfeet (831175)

  49. no you would pick red queen, pikachu, that much is clear, which wolf raised you,

    narciso (732bc0)

  50. the same folks who have buried the spectre (I mean clinton foundation) look with a electron microscope, at what is offered.

    narciso (732bc0)

  51. Melania says “but I know what he could do for the America.”

    Rest easy, America!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  52. Col. H, don’t you think it’s time for the proprietors to try out a one-word post with an identical one-word title: “Donald”?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  53. (They should save the one-letter title and post — J. — for a really rainy day, though.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  54. No. Beldar. I’d rather see Hillary! Clinton and Sandernista get thrown to a pack of ravenous wolves.

    Seriously. On pay-per-view.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  55. From Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

    Brian: I’m not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!

    Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.

    Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!

    Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!

    Brian: Now, f*ck off!


    Arthur: How shall we f*ck off, O Lord?

    From (whose money is made by the mouse-click):

    Ryan, who’s more calculating and ambitious than he lets on, is running the same playbook he did to become speaker: saying he doesn’t want it, that it won’t happen. In both cases, the maximum leverage is to not want it — and to be begged to do it. He and his staff are trying to be as Shermanesque as it gets. Ryan repeated his lack of interest Monday morning in an interview from Israel with radio host Hugh Hewitt.

    Of course in this environment, saying you don’t want the job is the only way to get it. If he was seen to be angling for it, he’d be stained and disqualified by the current mess.

    What Speaker (and Republican National Convention chair) Paul Ryan actually said, word for word:

    HH: All right, now I want to turn to, you are going to be the chairman of our Republican Party Convention. I say our. I’m a Republican, for new listeners to the Hugh Hewitt Show at this hour, and longstanding member. I’ve always been an activist. You’re the chairman of the convention. You told the Times of Israel I decided not to run for president. I think you should run if you’re going to be president. I think you should start in Israel and run to the tape. I get that. But you are going to be chairman, and there is quite a lot of talk about Rule 40B. Do you think the rules of the 2012 Convention ought to bind this convention, Mr. Speaker?

    PR: You know, I don’t know, that’s not my decision. That is going to be up to the delegates. I’m going to be an honest broker, and make sure that the convention follows the rules as the delegates make the rules. As you probably know, the Rules Committee meets the week before the convention. I believe it’s two delegates from each state and territory, about 112 people…

    HH: That’s correct.

    PR: … who’ll set the rules, and I’m not going to make an opinion or a judgment one way or the other, because it’s their decision, the delegates’ decision, who are the grassroots of the party, by the way. It should not be our decision as leaders. It is the delegates’ decision. So I’m not going to comment on what these rules look like or not. But I do believe people put my name in this thing, and I say get my name out of that. This is, if you want to be president, you should go run for president. And that’s just the way I see it.

    HH: So you’re not the fresh face that Karl Rove was talking about?

    PR: No, I’m not the fresh face.

    HH: (laughing)

    PR: I’m not that person (laughing). I’d like to think my face is somewhat fresh, but I’m not for this conversation. I think you need to run for president if you’re going to be president, and I’m not running for president. So period, end of story.

    He must be running!

    For the Trumpkins, who might otherwise miss it: That was me being using humor. I don’t think Ryan is really running.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  56. Blearg … “me attempting to use humor,” I ought to have said.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  57. How is it possible to be Pro-Life and hold the denier of life blameless?

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  58. #48 Beldar,

    There you go again, friend, pointing out stuff that speaks to Cruz’s conservative credentials. Don’t you understand that Cruz’ role in re-districting is proof that he’s an insider? We need someone like Donald Trump who has written checks to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuckie Schumer. Someone who invited Hillary Clinton to sit in the front peau at his most recent wedding. He’s like totally an outsider. Get with it, man. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. I blew the Monty Python link to, but the video clip is much, much better.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  60. Ask Trump, ropelight. He changed his “prison for ex-pregos” position three hours after he stated it.

    nk (dbc370)

  61. I don’t know why we’re all fighting, anyway. It’s all theater. Like WWE professional wrestling. The Combine put in Trump to satisfy the right-wing loonies and Sanders for the left-wing loonies. In the middle, a slew of “contenders” who might “become” the Champion in November, with some of them “wild cards” to add to the suspense. In November we will “vote” and the Combine will tell us how we “voted”. It might, itself, already know or it might not. It might still be gauging the mood of the fans and not know which Champion will fill more seats and buy more pay-per-views.

    1984 my fat aunt Fanny. Real governments practice control of the masses in ways Orwell was incapable of imagining.

    Let’s just get our popcorns and Bud Lites and enjoy the show and be fans not fanatics.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. That’s a chickenshit response nk.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  63. ‘there’s no fighting in the war room,’ no the combine was perfectly willing to sell us the whiskey (Medici) for main course, whiskey (rubio) for second course, and whiskey (mailman’s son) for desert,

    narciso (732bc0)

  64. that’s python and strangelove, pureed in served in a shot glass,

    narciso (732bc0)

  65. nk, remember that in “Brave New World” most people were very happy to wear their leashes.

    Simon Jester (c1ab9a)

  66. some aren’t even aware like the puppet masters, a heinlein tale rather indifferently adapted to film, but simon you say narratives are just there,

    narciso (732bc0)

  67. The Puppet Masters was the first thing that came to mind about the little animal on Trump’s head.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. There I go again.

    nk (dbc370)

  69. 1 minute left in the game with the Tar Heels 1 point behind Villanova.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  70. sometimes this place feels like this moment,

    narciso (732bc0)

  71. Villanova up by 3 with 13.5 seconds remaining.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  72. 3 points at 13 seconds – Go Villanova

    Steven Malynn (e7b9ad)

  73. tied!

    Steven Malynn (e7b9ad)

  74. Tar Heels hit 3 pointer with 4.7 seconds left in regular time. Score tied.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  75. Best game in decades!

    Steven Malynn (e7b9ad)

  76. The score’s not tied anymore.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  77. In the second half North Carolina went away from the 3 point shot they hit so often in the first half, and they let Villanova guard their big inside guys with short guys who could contest low passes and dribbles. The Tar Heels failed to adjust and allowed the shorter more feisty Villanova players to negate NC’s overall height advantage. NC lost because the coach failed to use his players to best advantage.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  78. Kάποιο παράθυρο έχει φως, κάποιον τον τρώει ο πυρετός
    μας φεύγει βήμα-βήμα.
    Κάποιο καράβι στ’ ανοιχτά, με χίλια βάσανα βαστά
    να μην το πιει το κύμα.

    Kι εμείς οι τρεις στον καφενέ, τσιγάρο πρέφα και καφέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ
    κι εμείς οι τρεις στον καφενέ, τσιγάρο πρέφα και καφέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ.

    Kάποιος στην άκρη του γκρεμού, κοιτάει το τέλος του ουρανού
    μονάχος του πεθαίνει.
    Κάποιος στην μάχη πολεμά, η σφαίρα δίπλα μας περνά
    στα στήθη του πηγαίνει.

    Κι εμείς οι άλλοι μα το ναι, κάνουμε πάρτυ ρεφενέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ
    κι εμείς οι άλλοι μα το ναι, κάνουμε πάρτυ ρεφενέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ

    Έξω αστράφτει και βροντά, κάποιος διαβάτης περπατά
    χαμένος μες τη μπόρα.
    Κάπου δεν θα ‘χουνε ψωμί, κάπου πεινάει ένα παιδί
    και κλαίει αυτή την ώρα.

    Κι εμείς χορτάτοι μα το ναι, κάνουμε γλέντια ρεφενέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ
    κι εμείς χορτάτοι μα το ναι, κάνουμε γλέντια ρεφενέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ.

    Πόσοι απόψε ξαγρυπνούν, σαν κολασμένοι τριγυρνούν
    και κλαίνε και πονάνε.
    Στάσου και σκέψου μια στιγμή, πόσοι σκοτώνονται στη γη
    την ώρα που γλεντάμε.

    Kι εμείς οι τρεις στον καφενέ, τσιγάρο πρέφα και καφέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ
    κι εμείς οι τρεις στον καφενέ, τσιγάρο πρέφα και καφέ
    βρε δεν βαριέσαι, βρε δεν βαριέσαι αδελφέ.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. The fetus can’t possibly be a person or the person procuring the death of the other person couldn’t possibly be seen as a “victim” who shouldn’t be punished.

    By the way, how many abortions can a woman have before she isn’t a victim anymore? If she has 17 abortions she matches Jeffrey Dahmer’s tally so is she still a victim at that point? If she has 2 abortions she matches OJ’s tally.

    jcurtis (e777e1)

  80. It’s important to note the race and gender of any aborted fetus, the numbers of males and females liquidated for parts should be recorded to make sure proper proportions consistent with existing population norms are maintained. We wouldn’t want to allow any discriminatory practices to alter the natural balance of savagery in American society.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  81. I just don’t understand why Karl Rove was allowed to use his magic whiteboard to manipulate the ending of the championship game between Villanova and North Carolina.
    When Trump’s President, this sort of manipulation won’t be tolerated!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  82. See the memo at #47.

    ropelight (12d9bc)

  83. They back/approve of KILLING THE BABY for 2 reasons. One is power. They have convinced the most ridiculously STUPID human beings that KILLING THE BABY is a RIGHT and a WYMYNS health issue.
    And SECONDLY, they have PROPAGANDIZED AMERICAN youth/students for 30 plus years, that ABORTION IS OK and not immoral.

    Liberalism is a disease.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  84. Ropelight??? Are you saying that… BLACK ABORTED LIVES MATTER????

    I have the copyright.

    GUS (30b6bd)

  85. Black fetal lives matter

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  86. abortion is not a rah rah issue it’s tiresome

    fetus-geeks keep thinking is gonna be some massive dramatic gamechanger

    ask carlycakes how that’s working out for her

    happyfeet (831175)

  87. Who care bro, in music and pictures
    Play in separate tab while reading the translation below.

    Who cares bro (the translation)

    In some window there is light
    someone with fever gives a fight
    he’s trying his life to save
    A boat out in the open sea
    holds with grave effort not to be
    devoured by a raging wave

    The three of us are café fans
    we sip and smoke, playin’ preferans ¹

    well who cares bro
    well who cares of all these bro
    (repeat once)

    There by the cliff there is a guy
    he’s staring the end of the sky
    alone in his final day
    Α man is fighting there awry
    the bullet passes us right by
    and in his chest to lay

    The rest of us you surely know
    we plan which party next to go
    well who cares bro
    well who cares of all these bro
    (repeat once)

    Outside it flashes and it rumbles
    a passer-by he walks and stumbles
    lost in the thundershower
    Somewhere there isn’t any bread
    somewhere a baby is not fed
    it’s crying this very hour

    But we’ve dined a while ago
    and going out for a show
    well who cares bro
    well who cares of all these bro
    (repeat once)

    How many people they can’t sleep
    like condemned tonight they creep
    they’re hurting and they’re shrieking
    Just for a moment stop and think
    how many die each time you blink
    at this moment we are speaking

    But three of us are café fans
    we sip and smoke, playin’ preferans
    well who cares bro
    well who cares of all these bro
    (repeat once)

    nk (dbc370)

  88. #88: just proof of why pyrofeet loves him some Trump. They are very similar people, when it comes to being vulgar tools of the DNC.

    Remember, Mr. Feet, that this repeated language is offensive to people who have been very kind to you in this comments section.

    But then, Patterico himself thinks poorly of you and has written as much. So you just post to troll.

    I thought I would remind you of the kind people who let you rave like a homeless person in need of a bottle of Muscatel, just in case you have a soul left. I should know better; you sold it to Trump who is owned by HRC.

    Simon Jester (c1ab9a)

  89. Hillary Taney, on black fetuses: “These have for half a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit; and so far inferior, that they have no rights which any woman is bound to respect.”

    Pouncer (d90bef)

  90. i’m a small government pickachu Mr. Jester

    doing the abortion regulations all up in the failmerican womens

    that is big government

    i abjure it!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  91. No, ‘feets, you are not a small government anything.

    Steve Malynn (b5f891)

  92. ouch that hurts Mr. M

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  93. Heck. There aren’t many constitutional rights Hillary feels obliged to respect regardless.

    And the times she respects those are situational, reserved for friends and allies.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  94. fetus-geeks keep thinking is gonna be some massive dramatic gamechanger

    It’s just stupid politics. Republicans focus on what their position would be if Roe were ever overturned–right now a pretty far off contingency–while rarely discussing why Roe is bad law. Why not keep it simple–argue against judicial overreach and say our position is to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave the issue to the democratic process, where it properly belongs.

    And it’s obvious much of the pro-life movement doesn’t even believe its own rhetoric on the morality of abortion given the reaction to Trump’s punishment remarks. It’s murder but don’t even think about punishing the murderer!

    And this will all be moot if the GOPe gets its way and keeps flooding country with cheap labor (aka undocumented Democrats). That’s what guys like Patterico won’t get until it’s too late.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  95. Ask Chris Steven’s family about Hillary’s views on aborting people in the 208th trimester.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  96. You think she’ll draw a line at kids?

    She’ll abort our ambassadors. With a 3:00 AM phonecall.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  97. Trump’s comments regarding punishing women who have an abortion is based on the Left’s delusional view of how republicans think.

    Trump’s initial response is the natural, logical, and moral position if one believes fetuses are human beings and that abortion is murder. That is the rhetoric of the pro-life movement and of most conservative Republicans.

    Do pro-life conservatives not believe abortion is murder? If they do, what possible justification is there for implementing no punishment whatsoever on the women procuring them? I always figured it was just a political position to make pro-life position more palatable but the fierce opposition Trump’s remarks has made me question whether the pro-life movement believes its own rhetoric.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  98. I’m willing to accept that if he doesn’t back off from it and sticks to his principles.
    What? What’s that you say?
    He did back off it!
    Within three hours!
    He said what?
    The abortion laws are set!
    They’re not going to change!

    My hippo lies over the Combover.
    My hippo lies over NYC.
    Oh won’t somebody tell the Combover,
    To stop the hypocrisy?

    nk (dbc370)

  99. I like how old reader is saying Trump’s flip flop on abortion is not “natural, logical or moral.”

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  100. Dustin,

    Abortion–particularly hypotheticals about what the law might look like if we ever get an anti-Roe majority–is not important to me right now, so I could care less what Trump thinks about abortion so long as he will appoint judicial conservatives. On that score, he is the only candidate to have actually named potential justices. His number one ally in the Senate is Sessions–do you question his conservative creds on judiciary? Is he going to be any worse than the GOP establishment that gave us O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts?

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  101. Trump has no frame of reference for an opinion on abortion.

    He was born rich, and driven by his successful father to augment the legacy.

    Most abortions are done for financial reasons. Would be teen moms don’t have money to provide a home for a child, and are pressured by family to do it.

    Not applicable to Trump’s life, or those he would be likely to associate with.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  102. Christoph, I can see you don’t care, since you support a guy who flip flopped in a way you concede was dishonest and immoral.

    I do question Sessions’s creds. He supports the only candidate who proudly employs illegals and proudly ships American jobs to China, yet poses as a stalwart on immigration. How could he have any credibility?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  103. He’ll probably appoint his friend, Biggus Dickus. Or Biggus’s wife, Incontinentia. Incontinentia Buttocks. There is absolutely zero basis to believe that Trump would appoint conservative, originalist Justices or judges. But keep on slip-sliding away Old Something Or Other.

    nk (dbc370)

  104. Papertiger is right. Trump is hopelessly out of touch. We see this primarily in how he mistreats our veterans, and treats women, but also in how he flails for the popular view on many issues, including abortion. It’s particularly odd that a presidential candidate would be so lazy they never figured out their position on this until months into the campaign. But Trump wasn’t raised to be prepared and take care of business. He was raised to kick up a storm after he’s screwed up. He’s done that by suing or being sued, going bankrupt, trashing his loved ones or victims after the fact. It’s always some retroactive drama with him. His casinos are gone, his university is gone, always in drama.

    This is a guy who really thinks it’s normal to call the woman he cheated on the mother of his kids with a ‘hot piece of ass’ when defending his infidelity in the press. And then scratches his head when the vast majority of women find him repulsive. He was born rich enough that consequences aren’t a concept he’s all that familiar with. Even when he loses this presidential race, he’s not going to take responsibility for the many gaffes and scandals. He’ll say it was everyone else’s fault.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  105. s he going to be any worse than the GOP establishment that gave us O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts?

    Old Reader (08f24c)

    Yes. Guaranteed. Trump has an extremely well documented history of who he supports politically. It’s easily to the left of those names. Think Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi.

    If you’re upset about republicans backing those jurists, then you are a hypocrite to give Trump a pass for doing worse.

    But I thought you weren’t an American, Christoph. What state are you from?

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  106. Dustin,

    I personally oppose abortion but I have no confidence in whether early term abortion is morally equivalent to abortion (at least early term). At this point, I would not support criminalizing early term abortion. So I don’t view his flip flop as immoral, but it is irrational if one believes abortion is murder. I also have no problem admitting when Trump is likely lying or taking a politically expedient position, unlike most Cruz supporters here.

    Proudly employs illegals? All I have seen is that his sub-contractor employed some Polish illegals around 40 years ago. You have some news to break?

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  107. Old Reader, the GOP establishment didn’t give us O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy, and Roberts. They were all a result of “advise and consent.”
    The other party gets their say in the confirmation process, too.
    Most of the time, GOP Presidents have had to take into consideration that they need Democrat votes in the Senate (and even from among the Senate Judiciary Committee) in order to get someone confirmed.
    Reagan’s first choice was Bork—but he ended up with Kennedy.
    Bush 41 nominated Souter at Sununu’s request, but Bush 41 also gave us Clarence Thomas, one of the most reliable justices we could ever dream of having.

    Roberts used to be one of Reagan’s lawyers way back in the day. He shared an office with Hugh Hewitt. We all thought Roberts would be a good pick.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  108. If you’re upset about republicans backing those jurists, then you are a hypocrite to give Trump a pass for doing worse.

    His history is exactly why he is less likely to appoint a Kennedy or Souter–he needs to keep his base happy.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  109. We all thought Roberts would be a good pick?

    Not me, nor Ann Coulter. And many others thought his lack of paper trail and his wishy washy performance at the hearings was troublesome. In fairness to Roberts, I think he isn’t as bad as many make him out to be and his Obamacare vote is defensible on judicial restraint grounds. But I doubt he will be a consistent vote on contentious issues that mean the most to conservative jurists.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  110. Old Christoph,

    Perhaps you overlooked my question. You keep interrogating me and then ignoring any question I pose to you.

    What US State are you voting in? Or was I right in recalling you aren’t actually a US citizen?

    Yeah, Trump has proudly justified employing illegals and visa workers This is old news. Google it if you want to know about it. Trump’s been sued for his practices, and he also defends using visas to import workers when Americans are begging for the jobs he’s filling.

    Like on abortion, Trump’s ‘conservative’ views on immigration are a complete fiction. You noted the illegal polish workers he imported to demolish a building, but that’s just one example.

    Say, how many times has any of Trump’s competitors been caught employing illegals? You dismiss it for Trump… you wouldn’t for the his competition.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  111. I’m not Christoph and I don’t see any reason to answer personal questions about my background. I am an American and have lived all over the United States, including both coasts.

    I would defend Trump’s use of foreign manufacturing–that’s the reality of business today. That’s why he’s aware of the lack of incentives and why he genuinely wants to try to bolster American manufacturing. Would it be nice if he sacrificed some personal profit to employ some Americans here? Sure, but it doesn’t make him a hypocrite in the least. I would be upset if I knew he had recently knowingly employed illegals but I have seen no evidence of that. I do know about his H2B use on some of his exotic properties. What is not stated is that the clientele likes the European help brought in on these programs. I oppose these programs and I don’t think Trump is being honest (or at least he’s not correct) when he says these positions can’t be filled.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  112. Old Reader,

    Most people believed Roberts was a good nominee at the time.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  113. Dustin, this is not a campaign issue. The President doesn’t have authority on whether the states allow abortion.

    Try to be one step less deceitful than Chris Matthews.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  114. Most people? Sure. Most conservatives who follow judicial politics closely? Many conservatives were concerned with Roberts at the time.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  115. Old Reader,

    You refuse to say what state you’re voting in? Why on earth would you be so evasive about it? It’s interesting that Christoph was recently banned again, and he was also evasive about this.

    I would defend Trump’s use of foreign manufacturing–that’s the reality of business today.

    Well, I think when Trump says one thing and does the opposite it shows his lack of integrity. I guess integrity isn’t so important to you. You can imagine why I take your claims with a grain of salt, then.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  116. Dustin,

    There is nothing inconsistent about Trump’s trade policies and how his businesses are run. Why is this difficult to understand? Trump wants to change the incentive structure to ensure that more is made in the USA and he understands more than most how the current reality makes this difficult. That’s what he wants to change. I guess you could fault him for being greedy, sure, and he’d be the first to admit it. He wants to change things so that the greedy build their factories here, he wants a trade policy that favors the American workers.

    By analogy, Warren Buffet often argues for tax reform by citing how little in tax he pays relative to his secretary. Does this make him a hypocrite?

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  117. Dustin, this is not a campaign issue. The President doesn’t have authority on whether the states allow abortion.

    Try to be one step less deceitful than Chris Matthews.

    What happened to you, man? I’ve never insulted you and I’m obviously providing my opinions, when have been consistent over the years. There’s no deception to my views at all. Being a Trump fan has turned you into something really ugly to people who used to have a high opinion of you.

    And I disagree that Trump flip flopping on abortion is not a campaign issue or that my raising this issue is some sort of ‘deception’. Trump shows a lack of preparation and seriousness by not understanding a basic relevant issue raised constantly. Abortion rights come into play for judicial appointments, funding of planned parenthood, and moral leadership. You can’t claim that judicial appointments, funding, and moral leadership aren’t valid campaign issues.

    Also, Trump made a complete 180 on punishing the woman having an abortion, then claimed he never said such a thing and was always consistent. His lapdogs began angrily attacking those who were honest about Trump’s 180… a 180 that exposes yet again that Trump’s political positions are artificial and insincere. This goes to the heart of the case against Trump. I don’t trust him. I don’t trust his campaign. They keep lying to me. They keep attacking instead of owning up.

    Trump said two opposite positions in the space of minutes. He doesn’t believe them both. It’s reasonable to conclude he was lying about his actual views at one or both points, and is conning you with his other views. You say this is not a real issue and I’m deceitful to mention it. I say you’re projecting. If it were any other RINO doing this, you would be on my side, and you’d say it was a real issue.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  118. There is nothing inconsistent about Trump’s trade policies and how his businesses are run. Why is this difficult to understand?

    Christoph, what state are you voting in?

    BTW, Trump condemns illegal immigration taking our jerbs, but in a lawsuit he was exposed for having employed illegals and knowing he employed illegals (he also had lied about his awareness of it). He also imports workers with visas even as Americans are applying for the jobs in droves and turned away. He also exports his manufacturing to China while condemning exporting manufacturing to China.

    You are right that it is not difficult to understand. Trump did many things he knew were wrong, because he lack personal character.

    Dustin (2a8be7)

  119. Trump shows a lack of preparation and seriousness by not understanding a basic relevant issue raised constantly.

    This is, of course, a fair point. It is beyond ridiculous Trump had not mapped out an approach to the single biggest gotcha issue the media uses against Republicans.

    Old Reader (08f24c)

  120. Dustin… they will have to pry the jerb out of my cold, dead fingers…

    Colonel Haiku (42c195)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1193 secs.