Rick Santorum’s daughter hospitalized
posted at 11:15 am on January 29, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
On Thursday and Friday, some of us (including yours truly) were speculating over whether or not Senator Rick Santorum would be remaining in the hunt for the nomination when news broke that he was returning to Pennsylvania from the campaign trail in Florida. Now it’s very likely that the news was somewhat different and far more disconcerting. Reports are coming in that the Santorums’ youngest daughter, Bella, has been hospitalized.
Rick Santorum’s 3-year old daughter has been hospitalized in Philadelphia, his campaign said Saturday.
“Rick and his wife Karen are admitting their daughter Bella to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia this evening,” Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement.
The reason for the hospitalization was not provided.
Santorum’s Saturday morning campaign schedule has been canceled, but Gidley said the former Pennsylvania senator intends to return to the campaign trail as soon as possible.
While I knew that their youngest girl was a special needs child, I had not previously heard that she had been diagnosed with Trisomy 18, a malady which apparently causes those afflicted with it to be born with an extra copy of their 18th chromosome. (I’d never even heard of this condition before this weekend.) According to the A.D.A.M Medical Encyclopedia, this is a very serious condition with an extensive list of possible developmental complications, and the prognosis is not promising:
Half of infants with this condition do not survive beyond the first week of life. Some children have survived to the teenage years, but with serious medical and developmental problems.
Take a moment on this Sunday to send your thoughts and prayers for the Santorum family as they deal with this situation in the midst of a hectic presidential campaign. As of this morning, CNN is reporting that the Senator has cancelled all of his Florida events again today and will stay with his family.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Yup, and The Blood of The Lamb was shed for *all* of us. Jesus loves all his flock, defects, sins and all…
OmahaConservative on January 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM
Of course He doesn’t. It is an expression. But you knew that.
Thank you for your analysis.
It appears you do not know any people like Random. I do. He really does see the world differently from the way you see it (assuming he is as he represents himself to be here, something you can never be 100% certain about on the internet).
And, anyway, if at some point he lashed back, it wouldn’t surprise me. Whenever he starts picking on the sacred cows around here there always seem to be people tearing into him with insults in short order.
fadetogray on January 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM
Please. There is no defending this “Random” a-hole. All you have to do is look in on the preemie thread from less than a week ago, to know where IT is coming from.
It always runs to threads like this to preach its “message.”
link
JannyMae on January 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Thanks. I had forgotten about that thread. Personally I think Random just posts these dissertations here because no one will listen to him any where else.
Deanna on January 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Actually it was Santorum who implied that Palin should stay home and take care of her kids, including her sick last child. I am just applying his own standard to him.
promachus on January 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Random IS a vile troll who rushes to threads just like this one to “preach” his “kill any human who is imperfect” propaganda.
He has been told why he is wrong, and he has countered with arrogance and condescension. You have a lot of nerve telling people what they can and can’t say here. You can go pound sand along with Random.
JannyMae on January 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
I’ve never heard that expression. So, no I didn’t know that.
It wasn’t analysis on my part, it was opinion.
I know a lot of people like Random, or what he presents himself to be.
You think.
Exactly.
His entire purpose in making his outrageous comments is to inject himself into that type of discussion with that exact tenor.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Good evening to you, as well. Sorry for the late post, I’m setting up dinner – making stuffing/dressing, to serve with the Chicken Fricassee.
massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM
And, that’s why you’re one of my favorite posters.
a capella on January 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM
Not one to wear it on a sleeve.
On January 28, 1990 it was Superbowl Sunday. She was born. A beautiful daughter. She died on July 16, 1990 in a day care center.
I waited five years to have my next child. I was self employed. I never wanted to have my child in a day care center again.
Obama hates people like me.
Key West Reader on January 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM
If, by sacred cows you mean long term posters who have proven that they engage in reasonable discussion, (E.G. Hawkdriver,) then yes, he’ll likely find spirited response to his posts.
That’s what happens when you join a new community; figure out who is venerated, and why; engage them at will; attack them at your peril.
His posts smacked of smug superiority. That dog don’t hunt, here.
massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Thanks, you too. But I don’t gt to post that often. So one of my pet peeves is people who post these long, usually rambling, dissertations. If they want to have a soapbox they need to start their own blog. “Brevity is the soul of wit.” William Shakespeare ;0)
Deanna on January 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM
I have told him why he is wrong. He has never countered with arrogance and condescension. Quite the opposite.
Most of the “telling him why he is wrong” I have seen here has been of the “you can go pound sand” kind.
fadetogray on January 29, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Better yet! fade can go pound Random (YesIknowI’mbeingjuvenile!)
KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 7:15 PM
promachus on January 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
This thread isn’t ABOUT RICK Santorum-it’s about Bella!
I didn’t think I could think less of you than I already did.
I was wrong.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Beautiful Bella Santorum
.by Sarah Palin on Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:10am.Thank you, Rick and Karen Santorum, for living the Christ-like example of sacrifice and right priorities. Nothing is more precious or important than the life of an innocent child. Our prayers are with Bella, a perfect child in an imperfect world.
God bless the beautiful Santorum family.
- Sarah and Todd Palin and family
CoolChange80 on January 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM
CoolChange80 on January 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM
Both Bella and Trig are perfect children.
*Absolutely ZERO snark. They ARE perfect.*
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM
I hope Bella gets better soon.
BedBug on January 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM
You are a disgusting POS. Who are YOU to make such decisions?
BedBug on January 29, 2012 at 7:37 PM
Wow, a troll with a heart…
OmahaConservative on January 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM
Eugenics, even if your not promoting your own version of the perfect race (blond hair blue eyes, or whatever), is morally bankrupt and always ends badly. If your honest, or you are as smart as you try to come off as in your posts you would understand that.
Sultanofsham on January 29, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Oh I bask in the irony.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM
You bask in darkness and you live under a pile of dog sh&t. Your hatred is worse than anything I have ever known. And, I’m a democrat!
BedBug on January 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM
From the HotAir headlines:
I certainly hope and pray so.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 8:35 PM
The comments section here is devolving to the level of the YouTube-like free-for-all at Townhall.
HA has definitely deteriorated since the departure of MM.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 29, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Hi Edith! Glad you’re here; always nice to welcome another Perry girl:-)
bluefox on January 29, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Such great news! PTL!!
bluefox on January 29, 2012 at 8:41 PM
I’m not saying this to pick a fight, but:
Note especially Random’s “weakling with a congenital disorder” and Obama’s “chronically ill” similarities, and please also note the president mentioning some sort of “conversation” and the ethicists. That “democratic conversation” is just another way of discussing “such decisions” and the folks who’ll make them.
Did you notice who President Obama didn’t mention participating in the “democratic conversation”? Family. Not once.
No vote, if you will. “Who are YOU to make such decisions” indeed.
Remembering some of your past posts, I’m guessing you support(ed) Obamacare, right? I’m also guessing you voted for Obama and will again, right?
I pray you understand that the only difference between the man you elected and the one you insulted is phrasing.
rogerb on January 29, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Agreed, OC, and if they don’t start using the ban hammer more often, the HA brand — known for pretty responsible conservative blogging — will go to to the ash bin of histoire.
DCL, you’re right, too, except that it wasn’t MM’s departure/Salem’s acquisition of HA that did it. It was Salem’s subsequent decision to go for wide-assed open registration so as to increase hits/ad revenues. I defend their absolute right to do so from a business perspective, but decisions made for short term gain often lead to long term losses, and sometimes to oblivion.
When I look at our stellar blogging crew — Ed, AP, Tina, Jazz and many from the Green Room — I’m quite concerned how long they will be willing to put up with the crap thrown against the wall by not just a few of the newbies. That said, we did get some very good ones in the ORs, but they are few and far between.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM
I’m guessing you support(ed) Obamacare, right?
I’m also guessing you voted for Obama and will again, right?
Wrong.
Look, a lot of my values come from the pre-Christian Classical world. You don’t think they were all lefties then, do you?
I quoted Seneca. Was he a lefty?
If you want to understand me, a little less trying to pigeonhole me and a bit more bredth and background to your thinking.
With all due respect.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 8:56 PM
I mixed up the placement of blockquotes, but you’ll get the idea.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Random. You’re not a serious commenter. I don’t like games and I hate when people try and waste my time.
I haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM
rogerb,
One of the reasons I oppose Obama is his support of abortion. It kills millions of perfectly healthy children, far more than any war the US has been in.
There is a big difference between supporting millions of children being killed (and there are numerous pro-life Republicans, if you didn’t know that, including former Presidential candidates such as Giuliani and, in times past, the putative frontrunner this year, Mitt Romney) and wishing for the option to exist as it does in the Netherlands for parents, in consultation with doctors and subject to mandatory prosecutor review, making the decision, out of kindness to reduce their child’s unnecessary suffering, to euthanize their child in those very rare cases where the child is afflicted with a horrible disease with lots of suffering and almost no hope.
But of course you can’t see that because you’ve got some kind of cultural taboo bias in your mind and can’t get rid of it. But you sit beside, talk to, and are friends with if not acquaintances and co-workers all day long who are pro-abortion. You’d sit by pro-life Republicans and would even have walked up to Rudolph Giuliani and thanked him, rightly, for being a great mayor that day.
But he supports policies that lead to about a million healthy babies dying here every year and I don’t.
I’m talking about relieving suffering, and you’re getting all upset about that.
That’s OK. I can accept that. It is an upsetting topic.
But I really do not think you’re looking at my position in a balanced way.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM
hawkdriver, you’re not following what I’m saying (if I’m even speaking to you at the moment, which I wasn’t) doesn’t mean I’m “playing games with you”.
I’m speaking sincerely. You don’t have to engage me in conversation if you don’t wish to.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM
He wasnt talking to you.
Sultanofsham on January 29, 2012 at 9:11 PM
But as far as what I was saying, hawkdriver, it isn’t that complicated.
I’m saying that values shifted a lot with the advent of Christianity, and many of my values were formed with reference to the ancient world, especially Greco-Roman, but also Celtish, Gaulish, Frankish, etc.
They are different values and upset Christian folks in general, now being no exception. In some cases, I consider them better values.
My values are also informed by science, my own heart and its empathetic desire to reduce unnecessary suffering, and also simply reasoning through issues.
For example (and I really don’t think you’re going to agree or even follow this if you have had problems with what I said before) it doesn’t strike me as logical to kill about 1 million mostly healthy babies a year. My value on the subject says that adults have a duty to children, not the other way round, so parents shouldn’t kill their kids for convenience.
But they do. Every day in the tens of thousands.
I oppose that.
In the rare case where a child’s quality of life is so low and the outcome so bleak, I support euthanasia, provided the parents’ agree and their belief systems support it, the doctors agree it makes sense, and a third party prosecutor reviews the file.
That may be totally against what you believe in, but can you compare the two positions for a moment?
Being pro-choice/abortion and its affects.
Being pro selective and carefully monitored euthanasia and its effects (positive and negative, the positive being reducing great suffering).
Can you do that with intellectual honesty and at least acknowledge that what I support MIGHT have a positive motive behind it? And in any case, isn’t as harmful as the culturally accepted, wildly-held support of blanket abortion of perfectly healthy kids with great futures in high numbers?
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Who could possibly understand such jibberish? This is AnninCA, on steroids.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Weird. I could’ve sworn you were done posting except for citations if requested.
Regardless, I have little to no concern about either your placement or idea. You’re, frankly, not worth the time. Here’s why. Addressed to me, without a prompt from your 8-minutes-earlier misguided post to me:
You’re having both sides of the conversation. You don’t need anyone else.
Congratulations on having a strong self-worth and believing everyone is engaging you but, if you’ll take time to read for comprehension and not simply to fire back and prove you know every danged thing, the post was addressed to Bedbug.
rogerb on January 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Yep. And not so much.
hawkdriver said the same, I’ll note.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Oh please take that some place else. You don’t respect anyone here. You post rambling dissertations meant to provoke but truly only use more space than is necessary. You use tired cliches and utilize others’ thoughts for self-promotion. You whine when someone is harsh, even though you provoke it hoping for such a response. It’s tiresome to have to attempt to wade through the verbosity to find your point. It isn’t special or intellectual, in fact it’s narcissistic. Have a good evening.
Deanna on January 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM
TXUS, are you just simply not very intelligent? Is that the problem?
This is difficult for you to comprehend?
Something about that is beyond understanding to you?
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Deanna
Exactly. I linked to a 26-lecture course by a well-known Yale philosophy professor, Shelly Kagan, who covers this in the 20th lecture. It’s the difference between the “valuable container theory” (life has inherent value, usually given to us a god) and the “neutral container theory” (life isn’t inherently valuable: it can be good or bad; it all depends on the content of the individual’s life).
Obviously I subscribe to the second view.
Correct. Not very helpful here though.
Yeah, well, if I get attacked by 50 people, including those making various arguments and claims, I’m likely to respond.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM
In case you miss it on the other thread.
And wth? You posted after I left and you started the conversation up before I came back. Don’t use me as your excuse.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:24 PM
People in Germany and Sweden durring the 30′s and 40′s claimed a positive motive also. Doesnt make it any less morally bankrupt.
Really? “Its not as bad as…” as a defense?
Sultanofsham on January 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM
Oh for goodness sakes. I’ve answered this a long time ago and repeatedly. It isn’t important.
Here. A hyperlink for your convenience.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM
I know. He made a comment to me that is out of context for any exchange we’ve had tonight. I just want to know what he’s referring to and be done with his mental meanderings.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Great. You’re linking to the your exact comment I’m asking about. I’ve read this …
It’s what that comment is referring to that doesn’t make sense. I asked you a direct question. You gave me a one word direct answer, “yes”. The next comment you made to me was the one I quoted above. It makes no sense in the context. It might not be “important” to you. But I sure would like to know what you were talking about.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM
That said, I feel like I know so many of you–and I am so happy to have been allowed in. I was a Perry girl who loved seeking some solace here when things went so awry earlier in the primaries. Here is a shout out to gopher girl, julieusa and the other Perry girls! I was with you in spirit!
Edith Stifle on January 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Welcome, Girlfriend!
Luv, a fellow Perry girl.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM
I just don’t come to HA like I used to. It seems like we got more freaks than sane conservatives in the last OR…
OmahaConservative on January 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM
The comments section here is devolving to the level of the YouTube-like free-for-all at Townhall.
HA has definitely deteriorated since the departure of MM.
Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 29, 2012 at 8:38 PM
Agreed, OC, and if they don’t start using the ban hammer more often, the HA brand — known for pretty responsible conservative blogging — will go to to the ash bin of histoire.
DCL, you’re right, too, except that it wasn’t MM’s departure/Salem’s acquisition of HA that did it. It was Salem’s subsequent decision to go for wide-assed open registration so as to increase hits/ad revenues. I defend their absolute right to do so from a business perspective, but decisions made for short term gain often lead to long term losses, and sometimes to oblivion.
When I look at our stellar blogging crew — Ed, AP, Tina, Jazz and many from the Green Room — I’m quite concerned how long they will be willing to put up with the crap thrown against the wall by not just a few of the newbies. That said, we did get some very good ones in the ORs, but they are few and far between.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM
THIS^^^^!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM
hawkdriver, I simply meant this:
… wasn’t referring to you specifically. I meant it is probably true of most people here. It’s an observation.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM
WTF? YOU said the same.
And yet you continued rambling on with “since I value objectivity” and “it’s a humanitarian issue” posts.
Life hint: When a man’s proves his promise (word) to be worthless, people tend to ignore almost everything else he says, including/especially rambling and disjointed philosophizing. They can only be less valuable than the promise, and it’s been deemed worth nothing by it’s maker.
We shall trust that judgement.
In 3… 2…
rogerb on January 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM
He replied to someone’s comment almost immediately after that. I’ve been replying to others too.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM
It improving?
Freudian slip.
Is that how you view differently-abled children…as ITS?!!!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM
I see what i did.
I apologize for not reading the entire sentence.
That said-your views are still evil
annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2012 at 9:48 PM
I read that comment and it really had zero to do with anything we exchanged about. Did you make that comment based on something you think we exchanged about? Because, we were talking about euthanizing your child for a sickness and nothing more. You answered that question and I didn’t ask you anything after that. I wouldn’t have thought that comment had anything to do with me and assumed you were continuing one of your other conversations.
Maybe, address who you’re generally talking to next time?
Alright, I guess I got it. I guess. Thanks for taking the time.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Thank you so much for your kind comments about me, and for sharing your views. I am confident that some of your fellow travelers will agree with your opinion of me and, more importantly, find your views quite persuasive.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 9:53 PM
lol
No worries.
If I’m talking to people “generally”, I can’t very well “address it”, now can I?
In fact, I took the step of saying I speaking in general terms.
Sigh.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:54 PM
I replied almost immediately. Where?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 9:56 PM
It appears your schtick here is to be as condescending and insulting as possible to long-term, well-regarded posters.
massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Oh do the work yourself in finding it, if you care. It wasn’t an offensive reply or anything. Someone just asked you something and you answered. Technically against the letter of our deal.
I’ve since gone full hog in violating the spirit of it.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Besides, to be technical, I made a counteroffer, and you never accepted it. Contract law 101 says no deal.
:P
Random on January 29, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Useless to try logic of any kind with this one. Let the bottom-feeders eat from the bottom.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 10:00 PM
massrighty, if you were intellectually honest, you could add up the insults I received vs. any given. It wouldn’t even be close. You could also use an intensity score to measure the severity of insults received vs. given.
Again. It wouldn’t even be close.
But I don’t think you’re really about objectivity.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:00 PM
You could also look at who started the insults in each of the now 3 relevant threads vs. who didn’t start them.
Again, not close.
It breaks exactly the opposite way you’re implying it breaks.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I’m convinced anonymous blog comments sections are the atheist’s confessional booths.
tom daschle concerned on January 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Let me refresh your memory.
Then you answered here.
Then I was asked this. It referred to a thread you hijacked in a similar manner.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM
I answered like this in order to not start the same conversation again based on what we agreed.
Then you said this.
This
This
This And I never said anything to Bishop
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM
So, your counter is that others have insulted you (without proof!) so you are justified your obvious bad behavior?
Hawk tried to engage you honestly. You didn’t keep up your end. You were outright rude to TXUS and ALT.
You haven’t a clue to what I’m “really about.”
This is a fun place to engage in honest discussion about disagreements. You should try it. Some tips:
1. When responding to an individuals prior point, blockquote the post to which you are responding.
2. Don’t assume that those who disagree with you lack knowledge, or intelligence.
3. Learn who are the honest posters, and don’t insult them.
4. Don’t mess with Bishop at all.
massrighty on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Childish. I stopped with the discussion we were having and you obviously, to anyone even doing a cursory review of the exchanges went right on.
Again, don’t blame me because you can’t keep your word or control what you post.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Thanks BedBug.
KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Yes, thanks for repeating what has already been discussed what, four times now? And your “why” doesn’t matter. You should’ve been silent after you wrote “deal”.
But you weren’t, and which made your word worthless, and it makes people scroll past your posts. Learn from that. Meditate for a bit on why sincere and caring people wanted (needed) kindness and tenderness on this thread, and study on what drove you towards your goal of thwarting their desires.
rogerb on January 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM
You replied to other people on this thread and I did too.
I replied more, but I wasn’t the only one.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM
You’re an intellectually dishonest fart, rogerb.
By your logic, he should also have been silent as of that moment. I noted he wasn’t. It was a factor in my posting again.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I’m not a praying man, so I will send my best wishes and positive thoughts to the Santorums. No family should have to endure such trials with their children.
El Dillo on January 29, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I’ve been reading for a couple of years, and regularly for a year or so. I enjoy reading your posts… I did not know KWR, and I’m sorry. Condolences.
KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Indeed.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Are you being obtuse, or dishonest?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Are you being obtuse or dishonest?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Which comment did I make that got your blood back up to infer I didn’t honor the deal?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Are you?
You didn’t leave your comments “at this”. You made another before I did.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:21 PM
It didn’t get my blood back up. However, it was definitely not you leaving the comments “at this”.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Because the one form Bmore should have illicited from me a tirade of comments towards you about how you did exactly that same thing about the premature baby. I answered that I commented on it and exclaimed it was amazing medicine. Did that break the deal?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Which one didn’t get your blood up but gave you the impression I started the OT conversation again?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:23 PM
So deep that cuts the knife of life. But, your daughter is with the Lord, as she was when conceived and born, as she was on earth, and as she will be for all eternity. God bless you and your family.
TXUS on January 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Would it have broke the deal if I told Bmore that I wasn’t legally allowed to answer his question or should I have been rude to him? Because I answered his question (biting my tongue considerably) and left. When I got back on, you had pretty much gone nonstop.
What am I missing?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:30 PM
I know You!
You were one of the kids…that other kids would put those “KICK ME” signs, on their back, in grade school and in junior high.
You’ve been resentful ever since!
KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM
Yeah, actually.
If I was required to end conversations in mid-flow, then yep. Your reply was certainly nice, but outside of our agreement.
So I left few after after that, and you made a couple more, and now we’re all getting sleepy.
That’s how the ball bounces.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM
I mean, we could have agreed to only carry on pleasant conversations, but that isn’t what we said, is it?
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Are you being obtuse or dishonest? If it’s a matter of self control, there are people who can help you with that.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM
No! Wait a minute!
The more I read your posts…probably in high school too!
If you were at my workplace…you’d be sporting one on your lower extremities right now!
KOOLAID2 on January 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM
F U, hawkdriver. Nothing I have said is dishonest.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM
The post-Invasion Hot Air. You can’t escape it…even on a thread like this.
kingsjester on January 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM
That F U is just so classy…
OmahaConservative on January 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Just for the record, in my profession, I’m required to study basic elements of phycology to better interact with my flight students. You’re demonstrating two pretty acute phycological defense mechanisms. The first being “rationalization” and the second being “reaction formation”. Let me explain.
First, you’re rationalizing that my comment inferred we couldn’t comment at all. Second, you’re rationalizing that my answering Bmore, (“answering” Bmore) was somehow not honoring what I asked we do; which clearly meant to stop the discussion “we” were having that hijacked the thread.
Secondly, you’re at the same time using reaction formation insinuating that we really had no deal to begin with since I didn’t accept your acceptance.
It’s very telling you use multiple excuses that are not in concert with each other to try to prove your point. Someone else might also say you’re attempting projection by blaming me for you not being able to control your own commenting.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Ah, let me add aggression.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM
BTW, you’ve made quite a few comments yourself about people being both “dishonest” and “intellectually dishonest”. Did any of those people tell you to F. O.? I only ask because you do appear to be quite sensitive to name-calling and rudeness too. Honestly, I don’t much care for the name-calling either. But I’ve slipped here lately myself and called someone an ass.
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM
hawkdriver, you proposed this:
… then continued commenting. As did I.
So screw you.
Random on January 29, 2012 at 10:59 PM
fadetogray, please take note.
JannyMae on January 29, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Why did you cut my comment off there when it clearly changes the meaning by posting the whole paragraph?
hawkdriver on January 29, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »