It is terminally ironic that Barak Obama who is supposedly the agent of change and preached it in every speech, picks the longest serving senator in the US Senate...in other words he picked the least change candidate possible.
Oprah, who allegedly championed women’s rights now refuses to interview the first female Republican Vice President candidate in history but has interviewed Barak Obama prior to the beginning of the campaign, and then endorsed him. In the process she threw Hillary Clinton under the bus.
Harry Reid, said before the surge even began, that it was (past tense) a failure. He joined Obama saying the same thing. The surge has been an incredible success. Obviously their judgement is flawed. Obama reluctantly admitted it's success.
Joe Biden says that he plans to waste American's time to bring charges against President Bush, who kept every terrorist attack away from American streets since 911. That would be like charging Harry Truman for stopping WWII with the nuclear bomb saving thousands American soldiers.
Democrat liberal feminists have criticized Sarah Palin for keeping her Down Syndrome child. Interestingly, it is a critical illustration that killing babies is more important than any other issue for the “Pink” feminazis.
This list is so descriptive of what Liberal Democrats really are. They have rejected their alleged fundamental principles for the pursuit of power. They are sickening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
1) I would argue that refusing to interview (in Oprah's case) or not supporting a female VP as a woman (which you should edit, because you just say, first Republican VP) is hypocrisy. Just placing a woman in office is not the same thing as expanding women's rights. Having grown up in an Evangelical church, I personally witnessed the condemnation of a woman that divorced her husband, because he 1) beat her, 2) picked out her clothes, 3) dictated her hair cut. Apparently it was more Christian to stay with her husband. The majority of the women in that church thought she was making a mistake in giving up on her, who is the feminist in that situation?
2) I don't know too much about Harry Reid, but the surge has been successful. I'm not ready to say that the new Iraq will succeed and I still think that invasion was a bad decision, but compared to the previous years, things have certainly been better since the surge.
I'm interested to know what will happen if the Bush troop cuts go through (and I don't know too much about them except for the CNN and NYTimes headlines I get in my inbox. Law school has crippled my ability to saturated myself in the news.
3) Yes, it is ironic that the change candidate picked an extremely experienced senator. Personally I like Biden more than Obama, he was my original Democratic primary vote before he dropped out. But I would counter that with, isn't it ironic that McCain picks a VP candidate that equals Obama in inexperience? For one, given the tolls of McCains POW experience along with his age and skin cancer history, the emphasis on a VP's ability to take over office seems far more pertinent than in recent elections. I felt that McCain's criticism of Obama's experience was a convincing and valid point, but now that he's put someone with equal inexperience a heart beat away, i feel that he's completely undermined one of his best arguments.
4) I've heard several things against Palin, but one of my favorites is abstinence only education. Search for the Yale Abstinence Study. It doesn't work, and people who go through it tend to contract more STDs and Pregnancies. Her daughter is living proof.
4a) I thought Palin's son and McCain's sons were supposed to be serving overseas but they were at the convention. If you are a Presidential candidate ( or the wife in McCain's case pitches this), is it right to argue that you have given more to America because your sons are "fighting overseas" when they come out and stand beside you a half hour later? You have atleast one son that fights or has fought in the military, do you think that it is fair that he was (or could have been, I don't know his exact service position) on the front line but a politician's sons are kept from combat for political reasons. (Think Prince Harry).
5) I don't want to get into the killing babies thing, but my cousin and his wife droive three hours and pay nearly 8,000 to have an induced labor to end a pregnancy that was 99.5 percent predicted by multiple doctors of dying before pregnancy and the .5% of living is completely predicted as Downes or Turner's Syndrome.
5a) They have more evangelical religious beliefs than me. The believe that abortion, flat out is wrong, but the overwhelming odds say that this 27 year old woman is going to have a child die inside of her within the next four months. And by overwhelming, I mean around 499 out of 500 cases. Should she have to carry a time bomb around inside of her for that time (and she's taken a year off from her job as an elementary school teacher because she's been going to doctor's appointments twice a week to have the baby's heart checked to see if it's still breathing.
5b) Health care is one of the major reasons that I'm still a liberal. Erectile dysfunction meds are covered under the Bush health plan, but female birth control pills are not.
The private insurer that my cousin has through work is willing to pay for a lifetime of Downe's or Turner's meds and care and is also willing to pay for 9 months of prenatal care and the actual birth procedure. They would rather my cousin-in-law carry a dead baby to term, and spend more money, than pay for a specialist in natal defects to end a pregnancy that only has a .2 percent chance of a live birth.
I'm not suggesting that the democrats have all of the answers, because they certainly don't, but show me a republican who has a health care plan that doesn't make a couple earning 60k a year choose between paying 8k out of pocket for a necessary induced labor abortion of a 99.5% dead fetus, or carrying it to term, realizing that every day you wake up, the life inside of you is dead, with no compensation for the resulting psychological damage?
Finale: That last part was just trying to enunciate personal frustration. Reply to it or ignore it. People here or so opinionated and forceful that i can't get a word in edgewise. Most of the time I just want to be heard, and typing it is much more reliable than face to face.
I would appreciate your responses to the pre personal matter that I introduced at the end --and feel free to respond to that as well, but that was more of a personal vent than a policy debate.
I enjoy posting these giant rants in your comments because you actually read what I have to say (more on that in general on my most recent post) and then you comment in response to that. And even before that, I read your thoughts and think about them before i respond. Every day I realize that face to face discussion is more meaningless, but I still think that I can learn through this medium.
I don't mind the length of your comments at all. What's most difficult as you've found, is finding the time to think about them and writing a coherent response. I'm going to start with the end first. My next door neighbors are flaming flower children libs… they even have a converted school bus to go to Burning Man. We are very friendly, but we don't talk politics. She also creates puppets and asks me for help on some occasions. Thus I find it difficult if not impossible to discuss political issues face to face because we are almost always on opposite sides, and to keep peaceful relationships with our neighbors is important and thus, to answer your non-face-to-face question, blog anonymity can frequently grease the skids on discussion if we're civil.
I'm not counting my blog NG Posts to stimulate discussion. They are designed to be provocative.
With your post…boy do we have some disagreements to chew on.
1) Just placing a woman in office …argument. If you analyze that it, it means that only a liberal woman can affect change for women which has always been the problem with women's rights. It's not about women's rights its about pushing a liberal agenda and always has been. It's also why NOW hates women like Sarah Palin. I've heard stories you've described in some Evangelical Churches. To me that's deplorable but it's also anecdotal and irrelevant to our discussion.
2) Reid is a total loser. He has four sons three of whom are lobbyists. Another son is a county commissioner who voted in Reid's favor on a zoning issue that made Reid money when he should have recused himself. By the way, if you're getting all your news from CNN and the NYT, I'm not surprised at some of your conclusions. I really detest Reid. He's as slimy as they come.
3) I'm also not a big Biden fan. I think he's arrogant beyond belief along with his plagiarism of the English liberal writer. But he's not on the top of the ticket.
4) Abstinence works EVERYTIME it's used. ..every single time. It's only when it's not used that it fails. And much worse is the ultra-cynical attacks on Palin through her daughter. That, to me, sounds like the example by liberals of what you described in the "evangelical" example. She should be left alone. For every study you cite, I can cite one with the opposite conclusion so that becomes nothing more than a pissing contest. (Here's a personal fact for you that may surprise you. I have seven children, four of them girls so I have some experience with girls and boys.)
4a) Palin's son is scheduled to be deployed in December , I believe, so he's not gone. One of McCain's son has already returned from his tour.
So that's no surprised. My son went and served a year…thankfully he came home. Your's is a specious argument that they're at the convention. McCain has seven kids…which son are you criticizing?
5) I'm going to get nasty about the babies thing. Abortion is 99.9% a failure to use birth control and that means everybody that has sex. BC is available everywhere, free from Planned Parenthood, which is a contradiction in terms….it should be "Planned NON-Parenthood." I lost a grandson when his spinal cord birth defect ruptured two days before birth…he was actually born alive unable to breath. He lived 15 days and it was one of the most painful experiences in my life and I simply have no tolerance for people who use what I consider murder because they were too lazy and irresponsible to get cheap, easily accessible and ubiquitous birth control whether they like birth control or not.
5a) I guess I don't understand your comment about the 27-year-old woman. I believe that abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother is in jeopardy, incest (I'm aware of two situations in which incest was the case and it is devastating to families and fathers and mothers who commit it should be neutered and spade because they're animals), and most cases of rape. I say most, because some girls cry rape when it's not true. Tawana Brawley comes to mind.
5b) Of all the issues with which I disagree, health care is the most difficult. We all want to provide for our families and health care has become prohibitively expensive, primarily because of the amazing successes of medical research in America. When you go to socialized medicine by the government you lose so many options and incentives for research and worst of all is service shortages which are blatant in Great Britain. The profit motive is good. It drives the engine of success for nearly everybody. (you should watch the PBS program SMALL FORTUNES and the future of poverty.) What it illustrates among other things is just how well capitalism can help the poor when thought about in a new way. Bankers are finding new avenues to provide that profit motive and it helps. Medicine is the same. We have to find a way to provide options. Here's my big question for you. I hope you'll actually spend some time responding to this. WHAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE AND FAIR WAY TO PROVIDE A SERVICE WITHOUT TAKING FROM ONE TO GIVE TO ANOTHER?
a. private sector
b. government
c. combination
d. personally
e. charity
f. thievery
Canada and Britain's socialized medicine leave people in long lines waiting for emergency needs. Medical research is reduced because there is no incentive to do the "orphan medication" research. I agree it's a big problem, but the solution is not socialization.
I personally have to pay for my wife's medical care. But there are/were programs that help pay for my son and daughter-in-laws medical bills when their son died. It was in the hundreds of thousands. They had to pay very little.
Back to the face-to-face. I like Kudlow and Company. He always has a wide spectrum of opinions on the issue he discusses. One of the problems is that he frequently has 5 people, and sometimes they all start talking at once and you don't understand what anybody is saying. So, in a way, emailing back and forth or instant messaging can be good because you have to wait to read what the other person is saying and don't speak over them.
NG
I've mulled over my response for a couple of days and I've decided that it would be best to only focus on a couple of things, because the others are so strictly ideological that neither of us is going to phase the other at all or because they aren't really that important to me.
1) I'm not sure if I didn't make my abstinence comment clear enough, which is a definite possibility after rereading it, or if you understood what I meant and took it in a different direction.
Let me be absolutely clear. I am not against practicing abstinence in a person's life. I'm going to try not to bring in too much personal information here, but I myself was abstinent a few years beyond the average for males in my state and was planning on being abstinent until marriage (I actually do have sincere religious beliefs that come as a surprise to most people, mostly because I consider them to be a much more internal and private thing and I believe that my beliefs and morals should be separate from the Constitutional powers of the US. But that's a side note and a completely different argument).
I agree that abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STDs and pregnancies, but my comment wasn't about the practice of abstinence, it was about politicians like G.W. Bush and Palin who support ONLY programs that teach abstinence (whether the national government should even have a role in what local school districts are teaching is a completely separate matter).
I underwent abstinence only education twice at my church, once in 7th grade and then again in 11th grade. This consisted of being show an hours worth of slides showing me pictures of STD inflicted penises and new born babies. I was told repeatedly that it didn't matter if I wore a condom, I would still get an STD (and apparently it didn't matter if the girl was also a virgin) and the girl would still get pregnant.
Abstinence is the most effective way to go, but the fact is a certain amount of teens and young adults are going to have sex. And this isn't a contemporary phenomenon. I specialized in medieval literature and some of the things I read from back then, including Chaucer, were much more pornographic than modern erotica. Entire festivals were devised so youths could go out and hide in fields and have sex. So this has been happening for centuries.
The problem is that when teens undergo abstinence only education and then still decide to later have sex, for some reason, even though the abstinence part doesn't stick, the lies about condoms never working do. We could debate to what percent condoms are effective, but I whether it's 10 percent or 90 percent, it's still higher than 0 percent.
What happens is that young men either don't see the need to buy condoms because they don't think they'll do any good, or they've been demonized so much that they're ashamed of putting a box on the counter at the drug store. And I'm not creating hypotheticals here. I've seen this happen with friends. You've often mentioned your experience or greater age, and i'm invoking my age in being closer to the relevant teens here. Just because you've fathered 7 does not mean that you know the inner workings of their minds, regardless of how good of a parent you might be. They're so worried that some cashier they don't even know will judge them for buying condoms that they don't, and they either end up having pregnancies, pregnancy scares, or infections.
Don't respond to this by saying that they shouldn't have sex in the first place. That may very well be true but it is outside the scope of this issue.
2) Health care. I'm going to try and be brief here.
a) I'm not concerned with providing health care to you or me. I'm not concerned with providing health care to people who have had a chance in life and just not capitalized on it.
b) ideally it would be best if the private sector was the source of all health care.
c) I'm concerned with children who have been born to the parents described in a). I think as Americans we should all be given a chance regardless of birth. I'm not talking about a redistribution of wealth, I'm only saying that if someone's parents ruined their own lives, then society should step in and at least give that child a chance at a healthy life and an education. Private charity would probably be better, but if that doesn't cover everyone, I'm in favor of government assistance, when appropriate, not in abundance.
d) I'm not for socialized medicine.
e) I don't know how I feel about helping the elderly. I want to say that the gov. should help them when appropriate, but I'm very wary of saying anything that suggests that the government should help some people who failed to save at all or in ways that provide for a cushion against inflation, while others, possibly even from the same income groups, saved their money more wisely and can afford their own healthcare.
f) Finally, as someone who's taking Torts right now, I acknowledge that part of the problem is with the cost of medicine itself. Lawyers through various lawsuits have probably raised the cost of medicine through a combination of malpractice premiums and doctors ordering excessive tests to cover themselves. My Torts professor honestly sickens me when she goes on rants about the holiness of the personal injury lawyer. My uncle is on the other complete other side of my prof. He defends corporations from product liability suits, and while I'm sure that some of these suits are founded, most of the examples he tells me about are absurd. In his personal life, regardless of the fact that he defends and doesn't sue, he's had doctors refuse to perform elective procedures on himself and on his immediate family because he's a lawyer and they're afraid of future law suits.
So what I'm getting at there, is that part of the problem with the health care system is not just who should pay for it, but perhaps the bigger issue is what frivolous factors lead to it costing so much in the first place? And i'm sure there are other reasons, but it's late here.
Best of wishes.
Lonely
Post a Comment