SEATTLE -- Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden promised a group of supporters Sunday that running mate Barack Obama "will absolutely 100% trigger a nuclear Armageddon kinda thing" within the first 20 minutes of his presidency, but added that "Barack Obama is looking forward to this apocalyptic opportunity to test his mettle, because he totally aced his LSATs." . . .
"Now, that said, I want to easy your mind further," said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chaiman. "Right there along side Barack Obama, holding his hand through all these crises, will be me. Just like Bruce Lee, as Kato, faithfully serving the mysterious Black Hornet. Except for the mask and Chinese part. Ah so! No tickee, no shirtee! Obviously I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, especially Barack Obama, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. No brag, just fact. I've been there. I've created and resolved more international incidents than the rest of the Senate combined, so you can be assured that when America's enemies attack, I will bring my experience and 10th degree black belt in diplomatic chopsocky." . . .
A spokesman for the Obama-Biden campaign later clarified the Senator's remarks, and urged reporters "not to take Senator Biden's words out of context."
When asked what context that was, the spokesman explained that "the Senator has massive brain damage."
Go read the whole thing.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 10:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I totally agree with Joe on this. The swearing in of Obama as president is a crises of monumental proportions. All the other bad things that are going to happen are merely redundant echoes.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2008 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Iowahawk rocks
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/22/2008 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#1
No. The 'best politicians' and bureaucrats that money can buy are still in the positions that permitted them to screw the safety system in the first place. Why would expect something different? You think a politician has enough guts to say "we don't know what we're doing" and that "we need to ride this beast now in order to avoid doing something really really stupid just to show that we're doing something, anything"?
#3
We may avoid a replay of the 1930s, which was largely an attempt to avoid a replay of the early 1920s, with a repeat of the 1920s, ie hyperinflation.
#6
Well, this time, WE have the "charismatic" leader with a personality cult running against a military hero, anti-semitism is just fine in elite circles, and inflation is starting to rear it's ugly head.....
#11
I really object to referring to to Congress (Representatives & Senators) as "our rulers"! These people -President included- are NOT our rulers, they're our employees.
. . . the notion that the McCain campaign, and conservatives more broadly, have stooped to an unprecedented level of "sleaziness" with negative, nasty and mendacious campaign tactics has become the accepted media narrative over the past several weeks. . . . Liberal pundits are attempting to outdo one another in describing just how unscrupulous conservatives have become. . . . But one has to have been asleep during the Bush years to think that nuttery is exclusively a conservative phenomenon.
What about the left's conspiracy theories? A not insignificant portion of liberals in this country believe that a small group of Jews, er, the "neocons," took control of the government following 9/11 to fight wars on behalf of Israel. Is not this slander as odious as the Internet rumors about Barack Obama?
Time columnist Joe Klein fits the profile of the liberal hypocrite beset with disappointment over McCain's alleged degradation. He recently apologized to readers for writing earlier that John McCain was "honorable." This from a man who just a few months ago alleged that "Jewish neoconservatives" were disloyal Americans because their "plump[ing]" for war in Iraq and now Iran "raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel."
[Frank] Rich's use of the term "Weimar-like rage," ironically in a column decrying Republican scare tactics, is but one example of the left's careless usage of Nazi allegories to describe people and policies they don't like. Since 9/11, major anti-war rallies have included people holding signs and puppets comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Leftist writer Naomi Wolf, who has expressed fears that the feds were monitoring her children's letters from summer camp, recently published a book titled, "The End of America," which likens the Bush administration to a fascist junta.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann spews over-the-top, hateful rhetoric in his "Special Comments" on a regular basis. He has said that the Bush administration threatens America with a "new type of fascism," referred to the GOP as the "leading terrorist group in this country" on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, and has said that Fox News is "worse than Al Qaeda" and "as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."
Have the journalists now bemoaning the low tactics of the McCain campaign and its supporters never set eyes upon the wildly popular Huffington Post? That Web site hosts countless angry rants, many examples of which are too vulgar to document in a family newspaper. In 2004, Nicholson Baker wrote a novel imagining the assassination of President Bush. Last week, Fox's "Family Guy" depicted Nazis donning McCain-Palin buttons.
If these fringe (and most of them are hardly fringe) individuals don't speak for American liberalism writ large - as most "respectable" liberals will tell us when confronted by the examples enumerated above - then the stray hecklers at McCain-Palin rallies cannot represent American conservatism. . .
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 14:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My favorite is "Right Wing Hate Machine". I'm pissed that I don't see it here.
#1
In 2000, Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative who justified Palestinian terrorism as contributing to "political enlightenment," threw a fundraiser for his friend Barack Obama.
Khalidi glorifies anti-Israel violence as contributing to political enlightenment[vii] and unsurprisingly admires those who carry it out. His loyalty to Palestinian terrorist groups run so deep that he actually dedicated his 1986 valentine to the PLO, Under Siege, to those who gave their lives . . . in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.[viii] The book whitewashes PLO violence against Israelis and Lebanese, as well as the Syrian occupation.
The LA Times wrote an article about Obama's association with Rashid Khalidi in April:
It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors...
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
#1
This is a searing and timely account of the Obama-Ayers relationship.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2008 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Children who kill are called super predators, people with no conscience, feral pre-social beings and adults.
I guess their children never met up with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who engineered the Columbine massacre. What kind of apologies would they come up with for these screwed-up, cold-blooded killers?
There's been an interesting phenomenon at work lately when I post about polling news that makes the race appear not quite so dire for McCain. I've written that the Republican ticket faces an uphill climb. I've pointed to "astonishingly ominous indicators for GOP prospects." I've been told never to give a pep talk to a guy standing on a ledge.
And yet some liberal readers are driven into a fury each time I point to something that suggests their guy might not win, or might not win by a landslide. And it's clearly ratcheted up in recent days.
Kos himself felt the need to snicker at the post about the Nickelodeon poll. Now, in that post, I pointed out how far the Nick poll's margin had been from actual results for the past four cycles. I didn't say that it was an ironclad guarantee of the outcome, but that a poll of children might give a sense of what they were hearing at the dinner table from their parents. That point was echoed by that noted right-wing propagandist Linda Ellerbee at Nickelodeon. (Anybody else got a theory on why a poll of children puts Obama up, 51-49? Some pro-McCain messages in SpongeBob SquarePants or something?) And if I'm silly for putting up a post about the Nick poll, how about... Daily Kos diarists? Or the Washington Post?
So what's going on here? These folks are who they are; I'm not expecting discourse beyond their usual "YOU SUCK" level. But why are they so bothered by one guy saying that a landslide isn't inevitable? Why does "your guy might not win" send them into paroxysms of rage?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 11:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The whole DUmmie FUnnies website is premised on the bipolar mindstate of the loony leftists, just check atround a bit, you'll see threads of DUmmies moral going way up or crashing down, with all the concordant wild-eyeness and craziness, according to the polls day.
If the Goatse man couldn't win, this would be funny, but thinking those loons actually can cast a vote decidedly comfort me in my wariness of anything even remotely democratic (and I do mean the process).
#2
Speaking as a statistician, the Nickleodeon poll has a bias in the fact that it, obviouly, predicts only the vote of people with yopung children. Gays, singles, childless couples, people whose youngest child is a teenager or an adult, retirees are not represented.
Also if you adopt the rule of "very children a vote" without ponderating for family size then childs of large families are overrepresnated.
Notice however that between the factors I have mentionned some of them favour Obama and others McCain.
#4
Actually Ibis it works the other way. You want people to believe in a landslide because crushed morale of the enemy means a sloppier campaign and more likely mistakes.
#7
If I remember correctly didn't polls have kerry ahead of bush 4 years ago. I also believe Gore was ahead 4 years before that too. Well obviously polls have an issue with their accuracy and for many good reason. Mostly I think that Elitist Illuminati Liberals participate in the polls. I mean according to the polls right now, I should be begging Obama to take office now so I can be more patriotic and pay more taxes as we all become part of the larger United Countries of the World! Blah!
I saw a statistic recently that while in the past they had an 80% response rate, now it's only 20%, Procopius2k. That does include those who simply did not pick up their phones, as well.
#3
I always hang up on a poll.
always.
BTW... some of the presidential polls are suppose to take 45 mins to an hour to answer...
They need to pay me at $100+/hr to answer that.
#4
Personally I think a lot of people lie to pollsters. If I were polled I'd probably say I'm voting for Bambi to drive his 'lead' up some some of his flock will stay home since 'he has it in the bag - why worry.'.
#5
Good analysis of the problem in pollsville. And it didn't even mention the lack of cell phones, no phones and hang ups. These problems are increasing. It's getting harder and harder for polls to accurately predict the future. I predict a dark and stormy future for polls. There, I've said it.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/22/2008 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Another problem with pollsville is campaign calls made in the guise of polling. You can recognize them by lamer than usual questions like "Would you be less inclined to vote for Candidate X if you knew he consumed the flesh of orphan children and was in thrall to the Five Jew Bankers?"
#7
Take a look at "Magic Town" with Jimmy Stewart, 1947. A pollster, (Stewart) finds a small town that reflects American sentiments perfectly until, of course, they find out their opinions are valued. The scene where they set up booths selling their opinions is priceless (no pun intended).
Posted by: Total War ||
10/22/2008 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I don't trust any of the polls. I don't trust their motives or methods. I remember when Thomas Dewey won the Presidency (Hey, I was just a kid).
Debka so "salt to taste"
US intelligence's amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile's Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."
#8
It's a form of Obamanistic Socialism. We take bans from people who have earned them and give them to those who might not otherwise have them. It's all about Fairness!
#11
Biden is like the gift that keeps on giving, for conservatives. I also love how yahoo headline at this time 9:44 pm est is, "Is Sarah Palin a liability?" I mean seriously, the girl is packing house when she goes out and speaks, she's been infront of the Mainstream illuminati media answering their questions, and most conservatives love and most liberals are in love with her. Biden joins Michelle in lock-down mode as Obama cleanses the world with his voice.
Posted by: Bob Chiling5044 ||
10/22/2008 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
(IsraelNN.com) Web blogs all over the Internet are continuing to buzz about an Iranian ship that was hijacked last August by Somali pirates and which Russian sources warned contained a dirty bomb intended for Israel.
The hijacking passed largely unnoticed in the mainstream media, save a brief mention in the news on August 22 that reported that three vessels Iranian, Japanese and German and their 57 crew members were hijacked by pirates in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia. Several pirates died after they forced open part of the cargo.
According to its manifest, the MV Iran Devant had departed Nanjing, China on July 28 and was headed to Rotterdam to deliver 42,500 tons of iron ore and "industrial products" to an unidentified "German client." But the Iranian bulk carrier with 29 crew members, owned and operated by the U.S.-sanctioned Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), was apparently transporting cargo considerably more significant than the average contraband.
The 40 pirates, armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) brought the ship to Eyl, a fishing village in northeastern Somalia, according to numerous bloggers. There a larger contingent of pirates took control of the vessel 50 on board and 50 patrolling on the beach. Initial attempts to inspect the ship's seven cargo containers failed. The pirates could not break into the holds and the crew swore they did not have access codes to the locks. The captain and engineer of the vessel evaded answering questions about the contents of the holds, despite threats by the pirates to blow up the ship. They first said the containers held crude oil, but then changed the story to say there were "minerals" in the holds. When at last the pirates succeeded in opening one of the containers, they allegedly discovered packets of what they later reported to be "a powdery fine sandy soil." The pirates who had any exposure to the powder were reportedly struck down by illness and within days began to exhibit strange symptoms, including skin burns and hair loss. Sixteen of them died. Andrew Mwangura, director of the East African Seafarers' Assistance Program, was quoted by the South Africa Sunday Times in a September 28 interview, "There is something very wrong about that ship."
The vessel was released by the pirates on October 10, announced the IRISL public relations office, "after seven weeks of negotiations with Somali pirates." All 29 members of the crew were reported safe. Iran criticized world powers for its indifference toward the lack of security in international waters. IRISL, which is run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, added in its statement that the vessel was sailing towards international waters and it is not clear where the ship has gone since the report.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was "an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel. "The entire cargo of radioactive sand," said the Russian sources, "[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore." Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship's crew succeeded in reaching Israel's coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.
Dr. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), told Israel National News that the entire incident could easily have been a fiction -- or not. "Nothing is impossible in this region," said Kam, an IDF Colonel (res.) and former deputy director of the Research Division in the IDF's Military Intelligence, "but logically [the report] doesn't seem to be very reliable."
The reason, he said, is that such an attack on Israel would cost the Iranians dearly -- and he said they know it. "First of all, because it could fail, and this would be the worst thing for them. I think that if at all, the timing is very bad for them, while they are trying to acquire their own nuclear weapons, when there is international pressure on them on that issue It could give Israel the best excuse to attack their nuclear facilities. "Also, if such an operation is successful, the outcome could be an Israeli strategic attack against the Iranians, which could be very costly for the Islamic Republic. Since the Iranians believe that Israel does have a nuclear arsenal, they have to take into account that Israel would respond by nuclear attack," he pointed out. "If it is true, this incident could give Israel the best pretext to attack an Iranian nuclear site," said Kam. "Rationally, I tend to think it is no more than a good story."
Israeli government officials could not be reached for comment.
#2
The argument that "the Iranians wouldn't be so foolish" doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence. If they aren't foolish enough to pull a stunt like this, why would they be foolish enough to attack Israel with nukes?
Intellectuals on the Right are routinely accused of selling their souls to the devil and sacrificing their independent judgment in order to give conservative leaders cover. But which province of egghead-land is suspending disbelief now in order to indulge a high-brow hysteria not seen since Harvard decamped to the Potomac under Good King Jack?
Camelot-fever is raging out of control among the high-minded dilettantes of the Republic. . . . Like many conservatives, I continue to be puzzled by the mandarin classes thing about Barack.
True, he can give a good speech. So can Sarah Palin. He was a community organizer and a state legislator. She was a mayor and has experience in business. He inspires his base. She inspires hers. Why do so many intellectuals pronounce him supremely qualified, her not at all?
It must come down to the books. She hasnt written any. He has written two. And intellectuals, who are all too easily seduced by certain kinds of poetry, reflexively adore literary style.
One of the books can be dismissed. The Audacity of Hope recites, in a manner calculated to give as little offense as possible to the tender-minded, a history of the policy debates of recent years. A lot of people bought the book, but how many read it cover to cover, no skipping? What is interesting in it is lost in deserts of tedious prose; you sense that a bunch of research memos prepared by the staff were reworked by the author into a book. As a specimen of assisted authorship (take a look at the acknowledgements page) it falls considerably short of the pièce de résistance of the genre, Kennedys Profiles in Courage.
Dreams from My Father is another matter. It is a good book, distinguished by the excellence of its style, the vividness of its characters, and the clarity of its portraiture. It is the work of a cultivated, curious, and introspective man seeking to understand himself . . . the youthful quest-book of an intellectual, and as such it helps explain the infatuation with Obama so conspicuously on display in the salons of nerd-dom. Many intellectuals who support him see their own qualities reflected in him; he gives a little boost to their amour-propre.
But intellectuals should be wary of anointing philosopher-kings. They have a poor record when it comes to judging character. Platos heart was broken by Dionysius of Syracuse. George Bernard Shaw, Edmund Wilson, and the New York Timess Walter Duranty carried water for Stalin; Lincoln Steffens did the same for Lenin. Voltaires transactions with Frederick, Diderots with Catherine, Swifts with Bolingbroke, were not wholly creditable to them. Alas, too few of Camelots courtiers are left to remind a younger generation of brain workers of the dangers of intellectual whoredom.
A tendency to worship uncritically the stylish and more intellectualized forms of power is one of the vices of the intellectual caste. A tendency to overlook the virtues of leaders who have not written books or attended special finishing schools is another. Whenever he is tempted to dismiss a candidate like Sarah Palin, the conscientious egghead should first consult an entry in Emersons journal of June 1863:
Lincoln. We must accept the results of universal suffrage . . . . We shall have coarse men . . . . You cannot refine Mr Lincolns taste, or extend his horizon . . . . But this we must be ready for, and let the clown appear.
Memo to the intoxicated intelligentsia: Its time to sober up. Its also time to put the qualification debate aside. Given what we know now, both Obama and Palin are qualified to lead. The question for the voter is: in which direction do you want to be led?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 12:55 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think if we were all honest, we would stop calling them "elites" and start calling them "egg-heads". That's what they are little awkward Humpty Dumpty egg-heads.
#2
When I got accepted to law school, I was very impressed by all the professors who had Harvard degrees. Then I actually met them.
Most of my profs were good teachers and likeable people. Some of the ones with the flashiest credentials were the worst--both as teachers and as human beings. On the other hand, the two older profs who had the least impressive credentials were the coolest people and the best teachers.
Needless to say, I no longer overvalue Harvard law degrees.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I put this article, which was referenced at the National Review, in the Opinion sector due to the content, author and relevance to current issues.
The eye-catching title was that of the original and was not my own invention.
Perhaps I should have edited it and eliminated the appeals at the end, but the gist of that article itself is relevant, timely, on-topic, and of interest to those who are wondering about the Catholic church's actual stated position, as it differs from the Soros-backed liberal groups attempting to influence a large voter bloc.
My reasoning
1. This article is relevant, due to the author being a Bishop in St Louis, a "swing state" with a large Catholic populace.
2. This article is relevant because the article demonstrates actual Catholic reasoning on abortion as a central and deciding voter issue for a large bloc of voters.
3. It will influence voters, and may affect the outcome of the election. Thus it is a cultural issue for US voters.
4. It is especially relevant for a large segment of voters who are Catholic and intend to vote for Senator Obama out of ignorance or being misled.
5. The trigger for this post was the news about George Soros funding Catholic pro-Obama groups, and as an adjunct to it.
6. The linked-to post was part of a counter to leftist propaganda aimed at a segment of the voting populace.
Thus, it was linked and posted as an opinion piece, which it certainly is, and tagged as "Culture Wars", which it certainly is.
@trailing wife: I believe you are mistaken that abortion is not a public policy issue.
It most certainly is a public policy issue, due to the politicization of it. This is further shown as a germane issue by Senator Obama's promise to sign the Freedom Of Choice act, and Senator McCain's stance to reject it. This is also reflected in another important political consideration, which are the judiciary policies of the candidates.
@AoS:
In my opinion, your cut of the article was harsh and presumptuous.
This was not an attempt to proselytize, and I reject the cavalier miss-characterization of it as such.
If the moderators here are as apparently narrow-minded as this action indicates, then you are as restrictive of the left in disallowing dissenting conservative viewpoints to be heard. Is this how you wish to be seen based on your actions?
Please reconsider your actions carefully in that light, as well as considering the arguments above. I took the time to go through them in my head before I posted the original article. I hope you apply the same careful consideration this time instead of a wrong snap-judgment as you did before.
I believe you are mistaken, and should restore my post and apologize.
If, after proper consideration, you decide that my reasons and speech are not appropriate here, then I have mistaken this place as a place where a conservative, even one from another country, can speak freely.
If that is the case, as shown by what you have done or failed to do, I will not trouble you ever again by posting here, and I apologize for apparently bothering moderators by presuming you allow such dissenting opinion as I offered.
If the article is restored, or if it is not, that will clearly answer the question. I will see that answer tomorrow.
As one who found that article quite forceful and important, and who is on your side with respect to life issues, I would also remind you that it's Fred's site. That means Fred gets to make the rules.
Rantburg began as a site devoted exclusively to the War on Terror. It's broadened out somewhat, but the WoT remains the primary focus. Fred was generous enough to open the site up to comments, and then to reader contributions, but always with the proviso that we keep within the bounds of what Fred and his volunteer moderators consider acceptable. If you hang out here for a while, you'll quickly get a good idea of where the boundaries are. I'm a pretty vigorous poster and commenter, but out of courtesy to the owner I try to observe the local rules and customs. (The mods have chided me a time or two, too, so don't take it personal.)
If you're interested in weighing in on life issues, there are other sites with open comments where articles like this are often discussed (like this site and this one and this one and this one). It's off-topic for Rantburg, and that's all Steve is saying here.
I'd invite you to stick around the 'Burg here and stay engaged. It's a nice group of guys, overall, and you might get to like us once you get to know us.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/22/2008 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I stand by my earlier comments. The post in question was political without significant impact on the WoT. The topic matter, abortion, only gets us embroiled in an argument that cannot be won by either side. The good bishop is welcome to his opinion, and you to yours, Lagom, but we're not posting it here.
We have indeed broadened the scope here some: it happens every election cycle, since those of us interested in the WoT recognize that following politics is vital to understanding how we respond to terror. But we're not going to broaden the debate to include divisive, domestic social issues.
So the article will not be restored. The link is intact for anyone who wishes to follow it. But no more of these.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/22/2008 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The topic matter, abortion, only gets us embroiled in an argument that cannot be won by either side.
The arguement has been won by the liberal left. It has been lost by the conservative right. Most tragic of all however are the REAL losers, the unborn who will never see the light of day or the joys of life.
Lagom, it probably would have been okay if you'd titled it "Swing-State Bishop urges RC voting bloc to consider religious priorities when voting" or some other such thing. It's pretty much an article that pimarily Roman Catholics might want to consider. I'm not Catholic, but that's my take--too narrow for a general article, and definitely in the opinion section.
As far as "us" not being an abortion forum AoS, I agree--but I've been here for many years and abortion is not an off-topic topic.
Many of us recognize that abortion and infanticide is the real front of the legitimate civil rights movement. Not all come from a particular religious cohort.
Nat Hentoff, Jewish atheist writer for the Village Voice, is an example of the broader base of those included in the debate.:
A look-see into Feminists for Life (the group Sarah Palin supports), can be found here
But Lagom, try to understand that rantburg isn't a "stumping ground" for particular views only. Your article link was still available after all, and if you're new here, no one is trying to chase you away. But yours is an opinion article.
That said, tw, almost any subject is political, but most especially is the arena of the abortion of human infants debate a political one.
Every abortion in this country results in the death of a US citizen, (this is a scientific fact, not a religious opinion), and abortion leaves a sad and sometimes horrific "trail of tears" for those go under the knife, hoping for a better outcome by eliminating their "pregnancy."
What REALLY annoys me, though, is the lack of alternatives for women facing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. A true culture of life, as opposed to a culture of convenience, would design and promote the availability of viable alternatives.
Since it is inarguable that we have in an abortion is the death of a child, of course that would encompass politics and necessarily involves public policy. I was, for many years, very "pro-choice" and outspokenly so. I have since changed my mind after researching the issue.
There's so much out there, that all you have to do is to google abortion or types of abortion, and you can get quite an education.
investigate Don't go to this site if you don't want to see aftermath.
So, how is this connected to public policy during this election? McCain views are that the issue should be decided by the states, which seems appropriate. Roe V. Wade was an example of legislating from the bench. "We the people," through our reps, should work on legislation that reflects each state's views and principles. So, I can agree with that. Obama, on the other hand, has financial ties to Planned Parenthood, and has supported abortion and even partial-birth abortion for his entire career. He is against letting the states decide the issue.
One political facet of my personal position on the subject is that if we allow this crime against one portion of humanity, then it will expand to include the elderly, the infirm, the inconvenient. Eugenics is bad news. And so are many of the other issues that tend to "team up" with abortion and eugenics. For example, see:
brilliant writer/researcher Judith Reisman
"Implications of the Kinsey Reports on Child Custody Cases -- How Junk Sex Science Created a Paradigm Shift in Society, Legislation and the Judiciary"
But how does this relate to the War on Terror? Well, if we say we do not support the killing of innocent civilians throughout the world by the Islamofascists, we need to take a look at the 4000+ young Americans losing their lives each day here. The Islmofascists believe they are killing people for the right reasons. Unfortunately, so do we. And when one contemplates the disposal of human bodies issue alone, America begins to resemble a bizarre and macabre graveyard, rife with theoretical and political inconsistency.
Just so that rantburg doesn't become gentrified, let's keep the topics open as much as possible, while we reign in what doesn't fit, okay?
#10
I didnt see the original post, but I did read the article (and yes I had seen it from Kathrn Lopez at National Review). I believe the article needed to be properly edited (maybe cut some of the "pray for..." out if he posted that bit towards the end). This doesnt appear to be a troll, or a faker like Aris. He seemed to be earnest, if a bit odd and using lots of big words to try to seem smart (or maybe thats a euro thing - I remember Aris being that way?).
Steve, IMHO, you're wrong. Didnt appear to be a prosetlyization effort, at least not in his head, ther way he explained it.
Perhaps a better way would have been to correct it and direct him to the corrections and why you edited the article. Instead you slam the window on the poster's hands.
Overall he seems to be on our side.
I've posted similar things frm my Archbishop Chaput that are similar, tho I tend to edit them down, especially when Pelosi and Biden were getting taken to the woodshed. Should I leave too, since I agree with the reasoning and the article, and had I been in the mood, I may have posted it as well?
Sorry doc, you blew it. You fecked this one up massively the way I see it. If this was a patient, you'd have amputated the right arm instead of treating the hangnail on the left foot.
#11
Lagom is a darling from the wilds of Scandinavia, or so he's hinted (the Scandinavia bit, I mean, his darlingness is my own conclusion). He's been lurking here and drinking in the O Club for a week or two now, and he's been trying very hard to understand what's been going on in this country as we head into our election. He is desperately concerned that we might make the stupid mistake of electing Barack Obama, believing rightfully that he would suffer the fallout as well as we here in America. Dr. Steve, I don't believe Lagom meant to proselytize. He just needs to be gently led to understand the rules. After all, he clearly doesn't even know that AoS refers to the Army of Steves.
Lagom, most of us who post articles have gotten something snipped, or just not posted -- in my case a good deal more often than is good for my ego. It isn't a judgement against you, any more than a teacher marking a spelling error would invalidate the entire essay. You have much to offer this forum and I hope you will not allow this to drive you away, as that was not the intent.
For information, when in the salmon highlight, AoS is the same Steve White you know from the O Club. Out here in Rantburg proper he is one of the all-powerful moderators who help Mr. Pruitt run the site. AoS is a bit of a joke: it became evident as we followed the War on Terror that a great many men named Steve, or Steven, Stephan, Stefan, etc are doing important things to further the war, so the several Steves who post at Rantburg claimed inclusion by right. Perhaps if you introduce a few more Lagoms, you could form your own legion. ;-)
#12
Lagom, let me encourage you to read trailing wife's word carefully. I, too, have raised a few with you in The Club.
As far as I can find, this was your first post of an article here in the 'Burg. Please don't let it be your first and last. Work with us to find your way through the many buildings and hallways of what we loving call Rantburg University.
I found this place just shortly after the beginning of this War on Terror. It's gotten me through some rough times, in wanting to know what is really going on, and asking questions from extremely knowledgeable folks.
Even through our sometimes vicious political seasons.
Lots of experts here. They don't all post all the time, or even comment. But, when a topic comes up that needs an expert, up they pop.
We've all had our growing pains at posting here! Getting sent to "America's Roadside" or whatever it's called when a post has a bad word is an amazing experience!
Me, some posts I made, didn't make it. Some were dupes, even tho I thought I looked, some just didn't "fit" in. And I'm real good at getting stuff in the wrong category!
So stick around.... The few times we've met you, we have come to like you. You have another perspective to offer us, as we wander through this big ole world we live in.
It's tough now, and will be in the next coming years. So stick around.... and I bet, soon, we will see a comment from Lagom, and we will know, "Yep, he knows of what he speaks."
#3
AWESOME! They need to expand this and include the PC character from "I'm a PC" Hopefully this one issue will help demonstrate the socialist illuminati agenda of the liberal party.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
