Well considering that Nancy had the reputation in Hollywood of giving the best head in town and swallowing it all, that may have had something g to do with his moving to the dark side, and the of course her father was rich so that didn't hurt either.....
You may remember when the great Phil Hartmann (RIP) played Reagan on SNL.
At first they would show him as the 'kindly' friend posing for a photo op with kids and dogs and such.
And the they would leave and suddenly he would turn into the smartest guy in the room - a great strategist, a miltary and monetary expert, etc.
Then another photo op would happen and we was the kindly uncle, etc.That would end and he would solve all the countriy's financial woes and invent a cure for cancer,and so on
The funniest part of that was knowing that the 'serious, intelligent, able' Reagan did NOT exist.
How I would've LOVED if Phil Hartman were still alive and did a similar take on TFG.
As if Dame Noonington has a clue about what it's like to be anything other than white, wealthy, and entitled. As for the anti-choice angle, she's just falling in line like a good little Conservative hypocrite!
Peggy Noonan is a conservative, and conservatives usually feel, like Jonathan Haidt, that there is nothing to ethics (the question of what's good and what's bad) except feelings, especially MY feelings, especially if I'm white and male.
This is, unfortunately, where the paleo-liberal ethics (of the White Empire of the United States of America) begin and end. And this is what makes social-democratic ethics so hard for so many (white male) people, even today.
If you're a social democrat, the question of ethics begins with people, including ALL people, including yourself as a person, but NOT only yourself.
And the hardest part of this question is: What is a person? Because everybody FEELS they know the answer to it, but not many people actually KNOW. Sure, everybody ought to know that their neighbors, including women, are people who are entitled to special dignity among all living things, but it's amazing that some people who FEEL that embryos are people can forget that women are, too. They focus on controversial questions, which they believe they've answered (because they FEEL they have) and forget all about obvious, central uncontroversial questions, such as: Are not women people, too?
What is a person? This is a biological question, and quite a lot of people not only know very little about biology but also have persuaded themselves either that biology is not important or that it's just a bad thing, because, you know, it feels icky, which for a conservative is the same thing as bad.
This lot of people overlaps with people who FEEL that the the aforementioned question, the question of what a person is, is answered in the Bible -- especially in Genesis, because you don't have to read very far to get to this part -- even though, no, this question is neither answered nor even ASKED anywhere in the Bible.
But biology does ask and does answer questions like this, and we should know both the questions bioethicists ask and how they answer them. What is a person? A person is a being with a highly developed brain. An animal that is NOT a person is still a wonderful living thing that has a lot of wonderful things: It may have a beating heart, and it may have a spinal cord and the ability to transmit sensations, such as pain, and it may even have a brain to remember and to learn things with, but if the brain of an animal isn't as developed as a human brain, then it's still not a person, and killing it isn't murder.
What, according to biology, is the very last thing to develop fully in a human being while it's still in the womb? The brain.
So what does this tell us about the personhood of a fetus?
In biology, as everybody should know, there's a very wide "gray zone" between things that are okay for everybody and things that are crimes. Some of us eat calamari, and others don't. The gray zone is icky. But it's not criminal.
Unfortunately, for conservatives, there is no indicator of wrongness except for what they feel, so that they consider the feeling of ickiness, by itself, to be an accurate indicator of immorality. What else have they got? Apart from personal disgust, they have no moral compass.
There's someone around the corner from me that drives his pickup truck around with a GIANT "FUCK BIDEN" flag flying from the bed. Such small, sad little people.
Totally agree…The idea that the issues behind Roe passing in the first place won’t be behind reinstating it are laughable. Now SCOTUS certainly won’t reinstate it after they’ve scuttled it, there will simply be executive workarounds that render it moot. SCOTUS does NOTHING but literally and utterly destroy their power and influence by reversing Roe…This decision will end them
Nancy's dad opened the window. Ronnie wasn't clever enough to open it himself.
Well considering that Nancy had the reputation in Hollywood of giving the best head in town and swallowing it all, that may have had something g to do with his moving to the dark side, and the of course her father was rich so that didn't hurt either.....
You may remember when the great Phil Hartmann (RIP) played Reagan on SNL.
At first they would show him as the 'kindly' friend posing for a photo op with kids and dogs and such.
And the they would leave and suddenly he would turn into the smartest guy in the room - a great strategist, a miltary and monetary expert, etc.
Then another photo op would happen and we was the kindly uncle, etc.That would end and he would solve all the countriy's financial woes and invent a cure for cancer,and so on
The funniest part of that was knowing that the 'serious, intelligent, able' Reagan did NOT exist.
How I would've LOVED if Phil Hartman were still alive and did a similar take on TFG.
As if Dame Noonington has a clue about what it's like to be anything other than white, wealthy, and entitled. As for the anti-choice angle, she's just falling in line like a good little Conservative hypocrite!
Nephew.
Genocide.
Peggy Noonan is a conservative, and conservatives usually feel, like Jonathan Haidt, that there is nothing to ethics (the question of what's good and what's bad) except feelings, especially MY feelings, especially if I'm white and male.
This is, unfortunately, where the paleo-liberal ethics (of the White Empire of the United States of America) begin and end. And this is what makes social-democratic ethics so hard for so many (white male) people, even today.
If you're a social democrat, the question of ethics begins with people, including ALL people, including yourself as a person, but NOT only yourself.
And the hardest part of this question is: What is a person? Because everybody FEELS they know the answer to it, but not many people actually KNOW. Sure, everybody ought to know that their neighbors, including women, are people who are entitled to special dignity among all living things, but it's amazing that some people who FEEL that embryos are people can forget that women are, too. They focus on controversial questions, which they believe they've answered (because they FEEL they have) and forget all about obvious, central uncontroversial questions, such as: Are not women people, too?
What is a person? This is a biological question, and quite a lot of people not only know very little about biology but also have persuaded themselves either that biology is not important or that it's just a bad thing, because, you know, it feels icky, which for a conservative is the same thing as bad.
This lot of people overlaps with people who FEEL that the the aforementioned question, the question of what a person is, is answered in the Bible -- especially in Genesis, because you don't have to read very far to get to this part -- even though, no, this question is neither answered nor even ASKED anywhere in the Bible.
But biology does ask and does answer questions like this, and we should know both the questions bioethicists ask and how they answer them. What is a person? A person is a being with a highly developed brain. An animal that is NOT a person is still a wonderful living thing that has a lot of wonderful things: It may have a beating heart, and it may have a spinal cord and the ability to transmit sensations, such as pain, and it may even have a brain to remember and to learn things with, but if the brain of an animal isn't as developed as a human brain, then it's still not a person, and killing it isn't murder.
What, according to biology, is the very last thing to develop fully in a human being while it's still in the womb? The brain.
So what does this tell us about the personhood of a fetus?
In biology, as everybody should know, there's a very wide "gray zone" between things that are okay for everybody and things that are crimes. Some of us eat calamari, and others don't. The gray zone is icky. But it's not criminal.
Unfortunately, for conservatives, there is no indicator of wrongness except for what they feel, so that they consider the feeling of ickiness, by itself, to be an accurate indicator of immorality. What else have they got? Apart from personal disgust, they have no moral compass.
You've read too much Johnathan Swift.
A thousand points of lie
be proud you’re a rebel, the south gonna do it again …
Think of what she'll save on embalmers.
There's someone around the corner from me that drives his pickup truck around with a GIANT "FUCK BIDEN" flag flying from the bed. Such small, sad little people.
THIS!
Totally agree…The idea that the issues behind Roe passing in the first place won’t be behind reinstating it are laughable. Now SCOTUS certainly won’t reinstate it after they’ve scuttled it, there will simply be executive workarounds that render it moot. SCOTUS does NOTHING but literally and utterly destroy their power and influence by reversing Roe…This decision will end them
Yeah, Charlie used to do that.
Jimmy Carter-engineer
alzheimer's boi: had skills to be a lifeguard but not a teacher in 1931