Kris
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by Kris
-
-
I was happy that he acknowledged us. At least he recognizes that we are entitled to be acknowledged.
The term "non-believer" is unfortunate. It's a little like the term "darkie." No one is a non-believer. We all believe in something. We non-theists just don't believe in ancient stories about gods.
But that's OK. Progress is always slow. In his debates with Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln "acknowledged" that "Negroes" would never be the white man's equal. People like me who don't believe that ancient stories should set the limits of knowledge have a just cause. Meanwhile, we're not in slavery or forced to avert our eyes and walk in the gutter whenever a Christian passes or forced to accept less money for the same work. As with President Obama, our time will come.
I certainly hope and believe our time will come. Who would have thought even 30 years ago that someone like Obama could win the Presidency. I am hopeful that this generation will toss away hatred and bigotry and learn to value our common humanity. That's really all we got going for us. As a woman, I have seen so many changes in my lifetime regarding the equal rights and equal treatment of women. My grandmother could remember when women could not vote. It's amazing what we have accomplished in just a couple of hundred years. How can anyone want to slow down progress when they have seen what America has done in such a short time?
-
Well you see, NumbNuts, I draw my impression of atheists from a hateful, malicious and mean-spirited atheist wretch named Michael Newdow. I won't recite all the hateful things he's tried to do, I'm sure you're aware of most of them. I don't consider Newdow and those like him "fellow Americans".
Oh, please recite them! I want to know! I want to know what Michael Newdow has done to you personally that you would not only judge him but anyone else who holds a similar belief system. What "hateful" things has he tried to do? Ask for fair treatment under the Constitution? How dare he! I am sure any "true" Christian would be appalled by your bigotry and your prejudice toward others. I am thankful that I do not clump all Christians in the same category as you do with people. You are truly unbelievable with the things you say. Like it or not, Michael Newdow is a fellow American just by the fact that he was born and lives in this country. You're going to find a lot of people in your life that you don't agree with. That does not make them less American. How dare you even call yourself a Christian with the kind of behavior you exhibit.
-
Anyone can google. Its just that some of us have better things to do with our time. For someone who claims to be so openminded and yet so thick-headed. Religion gives guidance something you have strayed away from. Visiting other places via the internet doesn't count as being worldly.
Is this same religion giving the guidance to come on here and insult others and belittle their opinions? Organized religion as a whole is so intolerant. The laws of humanity provide all the guidance anyone needs to live a good life. Honesty, integrity, respect for oneself and of others and to try and leave the world better than you found it. Believing that the Christian god is master of the universe doesn't make you worldly either. It only makes you narrow minded.
-
He knows they are different.
Many posts from 2smart and patriot are really, really ridiculous. This is typical when dealing with trolls. They enjoy posting provocative comments and the response they elicited. They really don't care what they post as long as its provocative enough to get a pissed off response.
They have their own special needs that are met by this behavior. Sad.
Don't feed trolls.
Thanks
-
I think Kool-Aid is a favorite Limbaugh expression. His parrots think he's clever.
I haven't listened to Rush lately so I haven't heard that one. I do live in Rio Linda though. (his favorite place in Sacramento to hurl insults at the people who live there)
-
Simply uncanny ! You and Paul have so much in common I'd swear you were the same person. You're both atheists, humanists and far left loons. You both hate Bush, hate Rush, hate Fox News and love Newdow. You're both condescending and smug. And you both mistakenly think you're smarter than everyone else.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that two very different people can hold the same world view? Out of 200+ million people in this country why would that be such a coincidence? I think you sound a lot like Patriot and Lincoln Logger and a few other anonymous "guests" that post. That doesn't necessarily mean you are one and the same. You want some differences? We are not the same gender, the same age and we live on opposite sides of the country. I studied medicine and he studied law. I also used to be a right winger. I do not believe I am smug at all. Funny that you don't see that in yourself. I think it's pretty smug of you to decide who is who on this blog.
-
Hey Paul, thanks for the history lesson, although most of it is inaccurate and you didn't say anything I didn't already know. FYI, Jesus most likely was born in the spring because shepherds guarded their flocks in the spring when their calfs were born.
If you already knew all of it then why are you arguing that Christmas is exclusively a Christian holiday. Obviously you alreay know it's not. What are the inaccuracies? You always come here and make statements but say nothing to back them up.
-
Sounds like your "journey toward freethought" involved Kool-Aid along the way. Good luck with that.
What is this obsession with KoolAid? You always sound like you've had too much Wild Turkey. I don't get it.
-
When President Eisenhower left office, he used his farewell address to give us an important warning about the influence of the military-industrial complex. Here was an old soldier, who had been a top General in World War II, sharing his wisdom for the good of the country. It was his valedictory address, his exclamation point, his focus of emphasis.
George W. Bush just delivered his farewell address. Nearly all of it was a lame attempt at self-justification.
I never could stand to look at this bozo. Everything about him said arrogance and unearned privilege. I said eight years ago that he was a spoiled rich kid who didn't understand the world, didn't understand history and had no business anywhere near power. This farewell address was pathetic, and so was this so-called president. Sorry for hyperventilating, but this presidency has been a disgrace.
Mr. Bush, you've done quite enough damage to this country. Just leave.
Good riddance. I am ashamed to admit I voted for him once. Glad those dark days are over. For me and for America
-
A California girl discovers KOTW and just happens to be a leftist atheist who hates Bush and loves Newdow, just like Paul ! Go figure.
But 80% (by your own estimation) can believe in an imaginary friend in the sky and a few of you even know how to hurl insults that sound incredibly alike but no one finds this coincidential? Go figure!
-
Does anyone else wonder what a divorced mother and nurse from supposedly Sacramento, California is doing posting here on Kearny on the Web? Someone who knows so much about the court system and just who happens to agree with every comment that Paul says. Maybe if she wasn't on the computer so much she just might be still married? Just food for thought.
Why you would think it is your right to surmise why I am here and then go on to presume why I am divorced is just the kind of unbelievable arrogance and judgemental attitude that you and a few of your "minions" display every time you post here. Your lack of respect for anyone to have an opinion that does not comply with yours or who agrees with someone else you have decided to dislike just shows again and again that you are not here to engage in conversation or even debate but rather just to try and put people on the defensive. I feel I have more of a right to be here than you whether I am from Kearny or not because I come here wanting to engage in discussion and do my best to be civil and treat others with the decency they deserve as human beings. If you must know, my ex was someone very much like yourself. I left him. I like how you assume that it was the other way around. Typical. I learned about the family court system through unfortunate sets of circumstances. I have never studied law except on my own tme which is my right as a free American, just like it's my right to be on the computer any time I please without consent from my ex-husband,or you. Thank you, however, for proving my theory that we did originate from pond scum. Some of us still have yet to evolve.
-
"Winter Break", "Happy Holidays", it's all part of the atheists war on Christmas. I credit Bill O'Reilly with calling attention to the mean-spirited attempts to demean Christmas by these Godless souls.
Okay Patriot. I am going to attempt to educate your sorry ass-not that it is possible to do so. Christmas and so many other things in our popular culture have their roots in paganism. The church never thought of Christ's birth as any reason to have a holiday endorsed with it until they realized it could be used to counter act the other celebrations that were occuring at this time period. ie: Winter Soltice, Saturnalia, birth of the Persian god Mithra (who happened to be born of a virgin on Dec 25th-coincidence? Probably not) The church did not even know when Jesus was even born, and the likelihood that he was born in Winter is highly debated (shepherds in the field, Roman Census, etc) Many churches codemned the celebration of Christmas and some religions even outlawed it. Our German settlers brought with them many of their customs and when Queen Victoria married a German in England, Christmas went through a reform and became a holiday associated with family and friends, good food and drink and reminicing about the year. Food was often scarce and neighbors pulled together their feast and drank and danced to keep warm. With the popularity of Christmas and any excuse for a party or holiday we Americans seem to have in our popular culture, the church has used this as a marketing campaign to sell Christianity. I love Christmas and I am a Humanist. Anything that makes us a more giving, compassionate and kinder species is something I can endorse regardless of the origins. Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. The Christian church hijacked it, slapped it's own label on it and now is upset because "ungodly" people have decided to reclaim it. The church is willing to adopt any ideaology if it can be used to further their agenda. Face it.
-
You're missing the point, Christians don't want to be included with atheists. You people are creepy, I heard you eat your children.
We are all American, like it or not. Anyone who thinks the thoughts you do is beyond creepy.
-
From a Fox News report, so you'll probably think it's inaccurate; "Ambien, the most-prescribed sleeping pill in America, has been linked to hundreds of cases of sleepwalking, sleep-driving and even sleep-shoplifting. Sanofi-Aventis, which makes the drug, maintains it is safe when taken correctly and not mixed with alcohol or other drugs."
Also, I have personal knowledge of a woman sleep-eating while using Ambien.
I have more faith in Aventis than in Fox News
-
I wonder if there were any atheists on the plane that ditched in the Hudson. And I wonder if there were, did they find God and start praying like every Christian on board was doing. That's the falacy of atheism, when they're suddenly confronted with a deadly situation they ask God to save them.
They were saved by the skills of a very accomplished pilot and fast acting citizens who came to their rescue. If god had been there, he would have made sure there were no birds in the sky to cause the plane to fail in the first place. It was humanity that brought those passengers and crew to safety. If the atheists were "praying" at all, it was for the hope that the best of mankind would be at their service, which it was. I am sure many Christian passengers have prayed before a fatal plane crash, only to have their prayers fall on deaf ears. Prayer has a very poor success rate. The acts of human beings are what answers prayers. Yesterdays events prove there is alot of hope for the human race.
That's what's wrong with Christians, they think that god saves them from horrors such as this when they should be thinking, if he were truly a "god", and had all the powers of the universe, he would prevent it from happening in the first place. This story had a happy ending but there are horrors that happen every day that don't end so nice. Christians always justify god's absence in such events with lame excuses like "it was his will" or "it was their time" or the creme de la creme, "it was the enemy, Satan". I have been a nurse for more than 20 years and have seen more people praying than I care to count. It has about a 20% "success rate". I'd say god needs to improve his average. It's about the same as getting a winning lottery ticket.
-
"Science is always in motion....." Wonderful. So when science proves all life began in pond scum, I'll reconsider my belief in intelligent design. Until that day I'll use my superior intellect and logic and place my bets with God.
Is the possibility that life may have originated from some kind of "pond scum" as you say, make you that fearful? The problem I have encountered with so many believers is that they confuse what may be their origin with their value as a human being. They want to believe with all the arrogance that applies that they are somehow special among living things and the idea that someday they will cease to exist is something their egos just can't stand. Don't confuse your possible origin with your present worth. Make a difference-make the world a better place. That's the way to achieve that immortality we all desire.
-
Kris, Not that we mind having you speak your mind on this site but what's the matter...is Sacramento On The Web (SOTW) down or have you been banned?
I belong to many websites and post on them regularly. If speaking my mind gets me banned from any website, then that is somewhere I do not wish to post. I have not so far, been banned from any place. I do not post on this website on topics that are exclusive to Kearny. I do not, however, see that where I come from has anything to do with the subject at hand. I live in America. These are issues facing all Americans
-
The side effects are warned about on the commercials and I've read various articles about them so I'd assume that medical professionals would be aware of them.
I said I had never had any patient experience side effects like that and to that extreme. The commercials and the package inserts have to tell you about any potential side effects even if they happen in lerss than 1% of the population.
-
"Some of them were probably Christians". I think all of them had a Christian background which is what formed their ideals and inspired The Declaration and The Constitution.
Newdow is using his child as a pawn and should be ashamed.
I also have a Christian background but it doesn't form my ideas and thoughts. I think anyone coming from that part of the world at that time had no choice but to have a "christian" background. I noticed you did not comment on the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a Diest.
Mike Newdow has just as much right as a parent to speak on behalf of his child. You don't know the whole story. He is a loving father and his parental rights have nothing to do with whether or not he was married to the mother. If she was such a devout Christian-why did she allow herself to become pregnant by a man she was not married to and who didn't share her beliefs? And how is a 7 year old a Bible believing Christian? Brainwashing
-
"the millions of people who listen to him are just brainwashed". Quite a statement, and you know this how? *
* I hadn't formed an opinion on your intelligence until now. I'm not impressed.
I used to be one of them, that's how.
The fact that you ae not impressed by my intelligence is a compliment of the highest order. I accept.
-
That's a cute spin, but what is the reason for a winter break?
It's not MY spin-that is what the district calls it. That makes it all inclusive, whether someone celebrates Hanuukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, the Winter Solstice or nothing at all. I remember when I went to school in the 1960s and it was called the Christmas holiday and we even sang Christmas songs at our concerts, had Santa Claus and the whole bit-but there was always a few Jewish or Jehovah's Witness kids that were not allowed to participate. That is NOT all inclusive. Although, it did not stop me from celebrating, I always felt sorry for those kids and did not understand why the party couldn't be for them too. Children have a natural sense of compassion for others-they are taught to hate and bully by the opinions of the adults around them. Schools should be a safe haven for children to be--all children.
-
I'm sorry David Paszkiewicz doesn't register and post here. We could have some fascinating discussions, which might be enlightening and useful to the community.
His letter in today's Observer is a perfect example. In it he argues against Michael Newdow and his suit regarding the President's oath of office. Mr. Paszkiewicz also argues that a commitment to a traditional conception of God is the foundation of human rights. There are several major problems with his argument.
1. Michael Newdow's lack of standing in his daughter's case has nothing to do with the present action regarding the President's oath of office. Furthermore, the mere fact that he is not his daughter's custodial parent does not mean he is not interested in his daughter's welfare or that he has no parental rights. It's quite amusing watching Mr. Paszkiewicz work up a lather over how a father is "interfering" with his "born-again, Bible believing Christian" daughter's schooling. The girl was in the second grade when he brought that action. If the shoe was on the other foot and the custodial parent was the atheist, one wonders whether Mr. Paszkiewicz would make a passionate argument that the girl had been brainwashed, and how her Christian non-custodial parent was a hero or even a martyr. Maybe a second-grader is capable of being a "born-again Bible believing Christian," but more likely she was following her custodial parent's lead.
2. Mr. Paszkiewicz then argues that the statement in the Declaration of Independence, "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," is not a religious statement. Of course it is. Belief in a Creator is a religious idea. Perhaps if Mr. Paszkiewicz would explain his argument we could have a useful discussion on the subject. On the face of it, his statment makes no sense.
3. He then writes that the Declaration of Independence "makes it clear that rights are not something that are granted by kings or political leaders; they are granted by God!" A study of the history of human rights reveals a very different picture. Most of history is tainted by dominant forces controlling, oppressing and abusing weaker forces. Widespread acknowledgement of human rights is a relatively recent development. It grows out of the 18th Century Enlightenment, along with our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. This was a era of advancing secularization and a secular movement. In particular, our Constitution is a completely secular document. The Framers debated and deliberated on that point, and the choice to adopt a completely secular Constitution was a conscious one. So while one line in the Declaration of Independence references "Creator," our founding legal document, the Constitution, contains no such reference. This means that our country is not a "Christian nation," contrary to what some people claim today. This was made explicit in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, which states unequivocally that the "Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This treaty has the force of American law, and reveals the intent of the Framers, many of whom were in the government at the time. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law. The founders may have held religious beliefs, but they understood the importance of keeping those beliefs separate from their official duties.
One can argue that rights are derived from God, but that is just metaphysical speculation. In point of fact, governments have denied people rights throughout history. Christians have not been spared, and on the contrary have in many cases been the abusers and oppressors.
Furthermore, belief in a god is not necessary to a sound conception and practice of human rights. There is a more tangible foundation for human rights: our common humanity. Each of us, and all of us together in our communities and our nations and in the world, either will treat others as our brothers and sisters, loving our neighbors as ourselves, or we will not. If we do, no belief in any conception of God is necessary. If we do not, no belief in any conception of God will save us from being tyrants over those we abuse and oppress. Treating others with dignity and respect is a choice each person makes, and that nations make. Belief in a god is the reason some people say they are doing it, but there is a more tangible and more universal justification.
4. Mr. Paszkiewicz then argues that if "the Michael Newdows of this world succeed in erasing God from public life, people will begin to reject the founding principle that this is 'one nation under God.' It will then be assumed that our rights come from government." First, the phrase "one nation under God" comes from the current pledge of allegiance. The words "under God" were inserted into the pledge in 1953 as part of the McCarthy anti-Communist witch hunts, one of the darkest and most tragic episodes in our history. It is not a founding principle; if it was, the framers of our Constitution would have written it into the Constitution, which they purposefully declined to do.
Second, Mr. Paszkiewicz's argument betrays a characteristic mythical element. Rights don't "come from" anywhere. Either we respect and honor other people or we don't. Governments can proclaim a universal commitment to rights, but as we have seen in our own country, sometimes such claims are empty, as they were for Native Americans and African-American slaves for a very long time. We can champion human rights, and we should, but at the end of the day, a nation's commitment to human rights is only as good as that nation's fidelity to core principles. Those principles have nothing to do with what Mr. Paszkiewicz calls God. They are simple virtues like kindness and equal treatment for all. People either abide by them, or they don't.
Mr. Paszkiewicz seems to think that his religious ideas make human rights more secure. I believe that his ideas make human rights less secure, because the best foundation for an idea is its true and known foundation, not a guess or a speculation. In his conceptualization, values are buffered from their known source, which tends to obscure them. Mr. Paszkiewicz is entitled to his religious beliefs, but they are not universally shared or based on anything that is objectively true. By contrast, our common humanity is an observable fact. That is the soundest foundation for human rights. Acknowledging each person's humanity is the soundest reason for treating others as we wish to be treated.
5. Then Mr. Paszkiewicz writes: "The danger is this, if citizens believe government to be the giver of rights, they will then believe government has the right to take them away." As discussed above, the premise is faulty. Equally important, governments have been taking rights away throughout history. Governments in Christian nations have been among the worst offenders. Nazi Germany, for example, was a predominantly Christian nation, whose persecution of Jews is epic. If one takes the United States as a shining example of commitment to human rights, then how does one explain slavery, imperialism and genocide against the Native American peoples? There is no evidence that the dominant Christian culture in these nations helped them be any less oppressive; on the contrary, in the United States the Bible was offered as an excuse for slavery and in Germany persecution was explicitly on religious and ethnic grounds. The danger is a function of human greed and self-service. As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible. Man’s inclination toward injustice makes democracy necessary.” Democracy is the best form of government because its very form assumes universal equality and participation. But as we see over and over, there are no guarantees in a democracy. It is only as good as the work people put into it. People can shout their belief in God to the skies, it won't make the slightest difference unless they are putting human values into action.
6. Finally, Mr. Paszkiewicz writes" "Those who think it is trendy to protest American traditions ought to consider this each time they attack our pledge." I wish the gentleman would walk a mile in my shoes or the shoes of anyone who dares point out to the dominant Christian majority in the United States how it is not keeping its commitment to the central Christian value, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I know of no one who stands up against abuses and overreaching by this country's Christian majority because it is "trendy." It isn't trendy. On the contrary, taking such a stand draws abuse and contempt, as I have seen firsthand and as has been displayed on this forum repeatedly. I hesitate to use the words thoughtless and dismissive, but they do come to mind.
And we are not attacking the pledge of allegiance. We are protesting the hypocrisy and other inconsistencies in the way the pledge is being misused as a vehicle of indoctrination. We are protesting the fact that a national pledge, which should speak for us all, has been rendered sectarian by the inclusion of the words "under God." As always, the test is whether a nation's people are living the values they claim to hold. I have argued that we have just gone through an era of irresponsibility. I think most Americans are coming to realize that. We need to turn the page, restore civic virtue and reawaken our common commitment to human values. I can be fully a part of that effort because belief in God is not the test; fidelity to human values is.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I have heard the argument regarding the Declaration over and over again as evidence that our forefathers were all Christians with Christian idealogy. Granted, some of them were probably Christians but Thomas Jefferson, the priciple author of the Declaration was at best a Diest. He believed in the god of "nature" and the natural world. The fact that it says "creator" does not necessarily indicate reference to a god. We were all created-no doubt but there is much interpretation as to the origin of our creation.
I agree with your argument regarding Mike Newdow and his representation of his daughter. California is a community property state and they make no exceptions when dealing with custody issues. Unless a parent is abusive or incarcerated or has substance abuse problems. joint legal custody is almost always the precedent. Mike should have just as much right to file a complaint on behalf of his daughter as the child's mother does. I live in California and have primary custody of my daughters but I share legal custody with my former husband. As I said in another post, a few years ago, my now 13 year old daugter was forced by her father to undergo an underwater baptism against her will. When she told me about this, there was nothing legally I could do. Although I have not discussed this openly with Mike, I can understand the frustration that he felt at his case being thrown out on a technicality that should not have been an issue in the first place. I believe the court was just looking for a way to not have to entertain the issue at hand. We live in the same county here in Sacramento and I know how the Family Court works here. It's very frustrating.
If people believe so strongly in the PLedge and what it stands for they should have no problem restoring it to it's former glory before it was corrupted in the 1950s. Like any piece of work, the government did not get permission from the author of the pledge to alter it. It was written to be a statement that could be made by any American citizen.
-
Beware! Lock the car keys away and enable your computer when you are taking Ambien CR, For you find yourself driving and waking up miles from your house not knowing how you got there. Also you write posts on web sites that should not be written and send E mails to people in some kind of subconscious tirade that you never would do consciously if you were not taking the medication. I stopped three days ago and I already see a big mental improvement. It makes you think everbody is after you. YIKES!
I am a nurse and have never had any one report these kinds of side effects with Ambien, Ambien CR or it's generic componant, Zoldipem. It's supposed to be taken at night to help you sleep. It should not have sleepwalking type effects. It is a controlled release medication (hence the CR) which makes it longer acting, but I have never heard of anyone experiencing the type of paranoia you have had. Ask your Dr about Restoril, Lunesta or Trazodone.
-
That’s not logical. The logical conclusion is that you don’t know how all things began. Settling on an answer without information to support it is not logical. The essence of freethought is that you need both science and logic. Read the Wikipedia definition again.
As for how life began, your hypothesis leads nowhere. By contrast, the hypotheses and theories of science do lead somewhere. The best explanation for the beginning of life is that amino acids formed proteins, which then formed the first cell. That's a very general explanation, but unlike your hypothesis it can be tested. Whether scientists are right or wrong, their method holds more promise for uncovering the truth than yours. And if scientists are wrong, eventually they will learn why they were wrong, and that will lead to useful discoveries.
What you’re doing is called metaphysics. That was discredited and abandoned by practically everyone who understands and values science centuries ago.
Furthermore, there is not a single recorded instance of consciousness without an organic brain. By all the evidence, consciousness is a product of the material body, specifically the organic brain. Therefore, there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support the idea of consciousness creating matter, which is what so-called intelligent design proposes. It’s exactly the other way around. Matter produces consciousness under the right circumstances.
The other element here is your claim that every Christian you know is a freethinker. I made the point that by definition anyone who takes the Bible as an extrinsic authority isn’t a freethinker. Of course, you just ignored that, just like you seem to ignore everything you don’t agree with but don’t know how to address. Many Christians take the Bible literally and on “faith,” which means that they believe it because they wish to believe it. That’s completely contrary to an essential principle of freethought, which is that beliefs should be based on evidence, not just unsupported metaphysical suppositions strung together by a claim to logic.
Anyone who reads your posts with a little intelligence can see how your way of thinking distorts every conclusion you draw. You don’t base your arguments on evidence. Quite often you don’t even make an argument. You just assert what you wish to believe, call it an absolute fact, refuse to consider the alternatives and call names of anyone who doesn’t agree with you. That’s not logical, scientific or even Christian.
The problem with biblical "logic" is there is nothing new being added to it. Science is always in motion and new things are learned every day. Theories are tested and retested and studies continue and new books are written. Science can admit that it is not perfect and needs to keep an open mind. Christianity only leaves you with one answer to everything-god did it. I find that as illogical as any theory can be.
Another musical theatre anecdote; remember in "The King and I" when the King is pondering all the new ideas that are being thrown at him by Anna and he sings what I believe is the basis of a scientific mind and why it is dangerous to think you have all the answers
There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion in conclusion I concluded long ago
In my head are many facts that, As a student, I have studied to procure
In my head are many facts of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!
When my father was a king he was a king who knew exactly what he knew
And his brain was not a thing forever swinging to and fro and fro and to
Shall I, then be like my father
And be willfully unmovable and strong?
Or is it better to be right?
Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?
There are times I almost think noboby sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn that though a man may be in doubt of what he know
Very quickly he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so!
What Is Your Opinion On Nadya Surelman
in Kearny
Posted
I live in California where this woman resides and even as a liberal person I am appalled at what she has done to capitalize on the birth of these children and the others 6 she already had. I think her Dr should be brought up on charges. I would like to know where she got the money for all these in vitro procedures that are very expensive let alone the plastic surgery she has obviously had when she has not had a job in who knows how long. She has made money off disability for a back problem but has still managed to carry these and at least 5 other pregnancies to term (she has a set of twins as well) when pregnancy only exacerbates back troubles. I am a nurse and have seen how much it costs to keep a preemie baby in the neonatal care unit. I can't imagine how much it will cost for 8 babies that will no doubt have medical problems due to their prematurity and multibility. This was a careless act by her and her doctor and I find it disgusting that she is now begging for money and publicity. The taxpapers of California will end up footing the bill for her brood and she will get a multi million dollar book deal and reality TV show, no doubt.