Say What? Military Near Top of the 'Prestigious' Career Heap
My latest at FamilySecurityMatters.org:
Duty, honor and country refer to the giving of yourself for something greater than you are. You may earn a few medals on the way – but in the end, joining the military and, in the event that you become an officer, leading your uniformed legions into battle in defense of your country and its ideals, putting yourself in harm’s way – means a lot more to most Americans than how many Oscars or Pulitzer prizes are collecting dust on your mantel.
This doesn't suprise me one bit. Almost without exception, every officer I have met has been a person of substance and quality (specially ARMY officers) - sorry that was a shameless plug. Seems the professions held up as the standard by the left; actors, teachers, politicos... as the folks that are always getting in trouble.
posted by NewtownMark at January 31, 2008 05:28 PM
Newtown -- reading the first paragraph of Pam's article shows that teachers are among those who are considered to have very great prestige. Since when are actors, techers, politicos held as the standard by the left, anyway? I guess maybe I don't understand your comment.
That said, I totally agree with the top-5 list, including military officers.
posted by Ro at January 31, 2008 06:57 PM
They deserve all of the prestige because they EARN it. Great stuff as always, Pam!
Recently I was invited to write for Pajamas Media...and of course, I said yes! Although the actual day will fluctuate, I'll be contributing weekly at PJM. My first article is up today:
Taking the high road to sensitivity may make these culture judges feel good about themselves. But when the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Western civilization bow and scrape to keep from “offending” every Johnny-come-lately who makes demands of the native population regarding tradition and values - and even when they don’t - what exactly is there to recommend said Western culture? Banks in Britain have already stopped handing out piggy banks to children who open savings accounts, and some British schools are not teaching students about the Holocaust because some in their Muslim population are taking the line from Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and claiming the Holocaust never happened.
Tacky T-Shirt takes Moral Equivalency to New Heights
My article at FamilySecurityMatters.org today:
Yesterday, I saw an image on the Internet that I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams. Considering all of the shocking images available on the Internet that claim may sound specious, but trust me on this one.
T-shirt merchant Boomerang, located in Holland, has created a shirt with a picture of Anne Frank wearing a kaffiyeh called “Banned Frank.” I’m not sure what the intention was and since I can’t read Dutch, I can’t even figure out if a majority of commenters on the web page approve or disapprove (except this one looks like a thumbs-up: “Gezien de reacties hieronder; goed werk.”).
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ CS Lewis
What is it about folks these days that cannot see the obvious? It's like they do not want command of their own lives and want to be led around like sheeple.
Wow...I actually totally agree here, Pam. Awesome, I knew it would happen some day.
Morality-based intrusion into the choices about our bodies, who we want to marry, what we want to smoke within the confines of our homes, whether we wear seatbelts -- as long as the public has all the information, I think we should be able to make our own choices.
I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens on everything, but when he's right, he's right...and even when I disagree, I always appreciate his wit and style.
Today I agree. The article is entitled The Perils of Identity Politics. Here's a snippet:
People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.
Stupid things indeed. Be sure to read the entire article.
Would a black or female (or both!) Republican candidate for president get nearly as much adulation from the MSM and various special interest groups? Can you see, for example, Al Sharpton getting behind a Michael Steele candidacy...or Gloria Steinem in ecstasy over Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell (a Republican) running for the Oval Office?
Methinks not.
As I mention in my FamilySecurityMatters.org piece today (see the post below this one), it's important to look at policies, records, positions, and yes, character, first and foremost. The other stuff is fluff.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed it was the "content of our character" that counted most. But somehow, his message seems to have gotten lost. How very sad.
If it's not important, why do rightwingers keep harping on it?
posted by mudkitty at January 19, 2008 04:34 AM
I don't blame people for wanting to see one of their own break through, even though race and gender are constructs that have no real meaning outside of our imaginations.
Anyone bought from www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee seucred. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/ffxi.htm%5dbuy ffxi gil[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/eq.htm%5dbuy eq plat[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]cheap wow gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]buy world of warcraft gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/sell.htm]buy aoc gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/l2.htm]buy L2 adena[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/ffxi.htm]buy gil[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]cheap gold wow[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]buy wow gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com]buy warhammer[/url]
A preview of my latest offering at FamilySecurityMatters.org today:
Yet what about our responsibility as citizens and voters? Sure we can watch quick clips on the alphabet networks’ evening news to see what this or that candidate said on the stump as we wait for the new season of American Idol to start. We can also glance at the newspaper headlines in the convenience store while waiting in line to buy that magical lottery ticket. Don’t act surprised; this is how many people get their news and thus form opinions upon the most crucial issues of the day. Think about it: since the surge in Iraq has been so successful, its place on the front page has been replaced with news of a worsening economy. Accordingly, the economy has taken the forefront for many voters as they prepare to vote in both primaries and the general election.
I agree with you that most of us are uniformed. However...We seem to have a difficult time getting that accurate information that is so critical. I have yet to discover a source that will give me the facts...just the facts...without a lot of ranting and raving and arguing over who is right. Every article or news commentary has a biased agenda behind it, so who do you believe? Where is that "Source of Truth", so that we may go there and learn the truth of the information and the balance of the issues at hand? How do I vote wisely when I never feel secure in the information I have been given? Everything I read contradicts the last article I read. It's a frustration, for sure. If you know of a "Place of Truth and Balance" please let me know and I will go. Thanks for listening and I hope you can help.
Unfortunately, D., there is no one "Place of Truth and Balance." Since no one is truly impartial, not even reporters who are covering events in a country they do not live in, it's important to get your news and information from a variety of sources. This allows you to sift through for yourself and, I guess, find your own "truth." For again, no one is impartial, and what you read and hear gets filtered through your own personal experience.
That said, it's my dream that one day, news outlets and their reporters will make their own personal political affiliations public. They tell us they are unbiased and impartial, but so much innuendo seeps through their reporting that it's quite clear -- if you know what to look for -- what their agenda is. At least if you know a particular reporter leans one way or the other, you can read his dispatches with that information in mind.
And part of the problem today is that students are not taught how to think critically, but to think in one way only. The leftists now dominate our education system from the bottom up, and students are being given a huge disservice when they are fed propaganda, not the tools they need to analyze the information they encounter on a daily basis.
In a nutshell: do as much research as you can and draw your own conclusions. Hope this helps!
At the very liberal state university of minnesota, even the liberal professors were very good at forcing students to be able to analyze information. In the history department, the one thing they hit you over the head with day after day was to consider your sources. Liberals may have their own point of view, but an important principle of liberalism is to give the other side a chance.
Remember, one of the reasons you hate us is because we always want to "understand" criminals, terrorists, etc. Along the same lines, we want to understand republicans, too!
Anyone bought from www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee seucred. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/ffxi.htm%5dbuy ffxi gil[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/eq.htm%5dbuy eq plat[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]cheap wow gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]buy world of warcraft gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/sell.htm]buy aoc gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/l2.htm]buy L2 adena[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/ffxi.htm]buy gil[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]cheap gold wow[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com/en/wow.htm]buy wow gold[/url]
[url=http://www.belrion.com]buy warhammer[/url]
Happy Anniversary! The Lewinsky Scandal Celebrates 10 Years of Infamy
I put this under my History category because it's one for the books.
Ten years ago today, the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal erupted with a little nugget posted on the Drudge Report. Against Hillary Clinton has a recap:
On the evening of Saturday January 17, 1998, the internet gossip merchant Matt Drudge posted a story that opened the most sensational scandal season in the history of the American presidency. He reported that Newsweek magazine had killed a story about President Clinton’s sexual relationship with a former intern. The next day he had her name: Monica Lewinsky.
The mainstream media were slow to catch up, but by the following Tuesday they were reporting that Clinton was being investigated for encouraging others to lie to cover up the affair.
For the next year the story dominated the headlines as Clinton was investigated, impeached and eventually found not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours in a Senate trial.
Ten years on we know what happened to Bill Clinton. He is campaigning tirelessly for his wife as she seeks to win the second Clinton presidency. It is a curious twist of fate, and an indication of how deep were the repercussions of the scandal, that her campaign might not be happening if it weren’t for Monica Lewinsky.
For it was in the wake of the scandal, in which Hillary was seen as the wronged wife, that she decided to run for the Senate from New York. Her shamed husband, anxious to try to make things up to her, eagerly threw his weight behind the move. A wave of sympathy helped to sweep her to victory. As soon as she was elected, talk began about her running for president.
There's much more; be sure to check it out. You may want to shower afterward.
People talk about how President Bush has disgraced the Oval Office and makes America look bad with his policies. Yet Bill Clinton seduces a young intern (and we knew of his many instances of sexual misconduct before this), conducts his affair in the White House, lies about it before a grand jury, gets caught in the lie and has to 'fess up, is impeached (but not removed from office) and disbarred as a lawyer, makes Lewinsky a national laughingstock, but is considered the guy who kept America's international moral authority intact? What am I missing here?
Anyway, happy anniversary, Bill...thanks for nothing.
A related Lewinsky/Clinton note; on voting for Mrs. Clinton because her husband was "good to us" (blacks):
Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.
"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."
Obama's pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright as quoted in Baltimore Sun 1/17.
Yep, Monica and Chappaquiddick...both sad. And we're very sorry (yoda m) but they're both from YOUR side of the fence. (Pam...I think the pic I sent out this morning would fit nicely at the end of this post, no?)
posted by THIRDWAVEDAVE at January 17, 2008 01:58 PM
...said the guy who resorts to third grade-style name-calling. Kudos to you!
I'm just reminding you all of the "moral authority" we had during the Clinton presidency. What fun that was. Good times, good times...
But I'll remember your little dictum the next time someone brings up Bush "stealing" the 2000.
Clinton received oral sex, Bush led 3500 soldiers to their death for no reason. Hhhhmmm yeah, I am up for the oral sex receiving president any day.
Oh, when is Bush going to liberate Darfur?
posted by at January 17, 2008 05:44 PM
In regard to your 10 myths busted where we are not allowed to comment....
You need to do your research...
We are on our way to overpopulation, Darwin,Wallace, and Malthus all talk about carrying capacity. We will not realize we are overpopulated until we start to crash. A population always surpasses its carrying capacity before it crashes. If you think we are not becoming overpopulated you live in a fantasy world.
Also, cold weather does contribute to getting a cold. Yes you do have to have the virus in you, but most of us have the virus in us at low levels and our immune system can keep it in check. So we do not know we have it. However when you are in cold weather and not dressed properly your body has to work harder to keep you warm. So it puts energy into the immediate need to warm your body and takes it away from things like keeping viruses in check. Now the virus is free to multiply into levels that we will notice.
So going out in the cold can give you a cold.
Damn, he even spelled "cold" as "old" in the article, if he doesn't even proofread what makes you think he fact checks?
posted by at January 17, 2008 06:03 PM
Disgrace the oval office? Are you kidding? None of the world's leaders cared what Clinton did with Lewinsky. However the world leaders sure do care what Bush has been doing.
You are probably the type of person that calls French Fries freedom fries.
posted by at January 17, 2008 06:06 PM
Hmmm...I see you have hecklers too. Well at least you didn't get called "anti-Christian."
On the other hand, a hit is a hit.
posted by John Ruberry at January 18, 2008 01:46 AM
Damn, I knew I forgot to close the moron corral. Sorry.
My favorite is Clinton lied, no one died. Yep, she did.
October 10, 2002, Hillary Clinton lying, (according to steve):
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ............So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Sorry, steve, you are not a moron. But, according to someone that has no name, 3500 died because of Clinton's lying.
steve, your comment had nothing to do with the Trade Center attacks, the reference that you made was to invading Iraq. That's where the "Bush lied, people died" lunacy comes in. I took Clinton's words, which were the exact same as Bush's and made your point for you.
What confuses me is how any Christian can support Bush. I don't want to point out the obvious but "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments. Now christian conservatives have no problem upholding this with abortion yet when it comes to A-rabs it does not apply? Explain please.
A.R. Wallace
PS Oh, where is the link to the "ten myths" article?
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 19, 2008 10:17 AM
Mr/Mrs Wallace, if I may be so bold. Our military is not TRYING to kill anyone. I know a couple of those military types, that are deployed, and they never want to kill anyone. Well, okay, I know a few that do want to kill people, but that's another story.
In case you didn't know this, the Bible tries to convince you to protect the weak and helpless, that is what we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East. If there are people in the Middle East, that happen to be Arab, and they attack innocents or our military, they will die. Que sera, sera. According to their religion, they get a bunch of free stuff if they die while trying to kill innocent people that don't practice Islam. Everybody wins!
Maybe I misunderstood part of your comment. Compared to the gianormous, stupendous, monumetal intellect that is the living sir steve, I'm kinda dumb. Are you wanting Christians to modify the Bible to ape the death and destruction demanded in the Muslim's holy book, the Quran?
I am glad you brought up the Bible. I have followed Christianity for many many years. The bible is not the end all for we know it is translated and a lot can be changed or modified in translation. However if you are bible loving individual I give you these...
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mathew 5:21-22
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.
Proverbs 16:7
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah 2:4
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Matthew 26:52
Those are some of my favorite passages on war and killing. You see my friend Two Dogs if we were truly trying to free the oppressed we would not be in Iraq, we would be right here at home or in Darfur where a true genocide of the innocent people is taking place.
I often wonder how seemingly intelligent people can be so easily fooled by people. I will pray for you in hopes that you will see the true Lord, not the false one created by our government you seem to follow.
peace
A.R.Wallace
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 20, 2008 02:06 PM
I disagree with your passiveness, I think that we are doing the right thing. And I appreciate the prayers.
Also, I am not seemingly intelligent, but I believe in doing the right thing, which I believe saving those people was. I must have missed the passage in the Bible that tells me to ignore the plight of the oppressed and to stand by and idly watch as people are brutally murdered by their oppressors, but I'll try to find it, though.
"I must have missed the passage in the Bible that tells me to ignore the plight of the oppressed and to stand by and idly watch as people are brutally murdered by their oppressors, but I'll try to find it, though."
You are right we should not stand by. However you avoided my original question. If we were there for the interest of liberating the oppressed from slaughter then why are not policing Darfur? There is a TRUE genocide going on there.
So please, explain to me the difference between Iraq and Darfur. Because I know what it is, however I don't think you want to admit it.
peace,
A.R. Wallace
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 21, 2008 09:42 PM
No, Mr/Mrs Wallace, you don't know what my answer is. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to put down that hotbed of Muslim murdering as well. You see, I am not opposed to say exactly what the problem is. Islam does NOT mean peace, it means murdering anyone who is not Muslim. It's actually written in the Quran, you know.
The Sudan does seem less pressing than Iraq, Iran, Saudi, and a bunch of other indutrialized countries that have bomb making capabilities, however. You see, the Sudan is not known for its overly aggressive attempts to accumulate weapons of mass destruction like, let's say, Iraq. They simply want water, that lies underneath their soil in great quantities, I might add.
And I am really sorry that you think that the Iraqis deserved to be thrown in the plastic shredders by a murdering tyrant. I have no clue why anyone would think that, but your opinion is your own. Again, I disagree with your opinions. But, it's a good thing that you can contradict yourself completely and still maintain that self-righteous attitude. I salute.
Ah, Perfect you brought up exactly what I hoped you would.
To quote you... "and a bunch of other indutrialized countries that have bomb making capabilities,..."
Hmmm, kind of sounds like the good ol USA.
Then you said... "Sudan is not known for its overly aggressive attempts to accumulate weapons of mass destruction like, let's say, Iraq."
I would also say not just Iraq but the good ol USA as well. You see Two Dogs, you are slowly coming to the conclusion that we are not there just to free oppressed people. Now we are there because there was a dictator who was murdering people AND a threat to the good ol USA. Ah, so because Sudan is not a threat to us the horrific genocide there isn't as pressing?
Where in the bible does it tell us to murder people who we see as a threat?
I am sorry I didn't see where I contradict myself. I never said we should not help the Iraqi people, I just said we didn't go in there just to help them, we went in there for other reasons.
I am getting a good idea of what type of person you are since you quickly resorted to this statement...
"And I am really sorry that you think that the Iraqis deserved to be thrown in the plastic shredders by a murdering tyrant".
Excuse me, where did I say such harsh things? Oh wait, i didn't. It is so sad when people have to resort to things like that. So un-Christian.
Now can you bring something to the table or are you just going to fabricate statements about me and give me canned responses?
peace (true peace, not the republican kind)
A.R. Wallace
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 22, 2008 10:10 PM
Mr/Mrs Wallace, you should try to reread what you attempt to quote and make an effort to understand, you are arguing a point that is ridiculous and has been proven to be such for thousands of years. Close-mindedness is never a good thing, but such is the case with Bush-haters.
So, in other words, to help someone when you actually stand to gain something is a bad thing? Geez, do refrigerator magnets fly off and strike you in the head as you walk by?
The plastic shredder comment was made by me when YOU referred to the Sudanese as innocents and did not make that same statements of the Iraqis. I apologize if you think that freeing the INNOCENTS in Iraq is the right thing, but remember, I am not very smart, so I misunderstood your statements. I am glad that you back our efforts in Iraq. Wait, you said you didn't, but you want us to invade the Sudan. Nope, you don't contradict yourself at all.
Your oblique statements are somewhat hard to follow. I think that you are wrong thinking that Iraqis did not need help from us. That's my opinion and you can maintain your wrongness simply because our soldiers have sacrificed for you. It is guaranteed in our Constitution for you to disagree with what is right unless you break the law doing it. Which again is very common with the Bush-haters.
Two Dogs,
This debate simply started when I said I didn't understand how it was OK to kill A-rabs but not fetuses. You then said we were didn't want to kill but we had to in order to free the oppressed iraqi people.
FYI: "The objectives of the invasion, according to U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. former PM Tony Blair were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."[9] Bush said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace."
It seems freeing the Iraqi people was third on the list of reasons and the final trigger was a failure to disarm itself. So it seems freeing the people was a side note, not the reason.
Hey, remind me, who profited from all this? Weren't there some republican owned companies getting no bid contracts?
So I ask again, how does "Thou shalt not kill" not pertain here?
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 23, 2008 11:16 PM
Actually, you are mistaken as to why we went into Iraq according to every single published account. It was to enforce the fourteen resolutions passed by the UN. (Or however many, and the Dems also voted to do so. I'm sticking out my tongue right now, by the way.) True enough, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq possessed WMD's, tried to aquire yellowcake, only Joe Wilson disagrees, and Hussein was murdering everyone that opposed him, inluding, but not limited to, members of his family.
Again, as far as your biblical references are concerned, yes, you know that one of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." So does my dog. What you fail to understand is that I believe that G-d knows what is in your heart. That commandment does not mean to sit idly by and watch murder happen. Our invasion is backed by doing what was right in my opinion.
If your interpretation of a single line in the Bible prohibits you from making the right move, then maybe you should dig deeper into the information contained in the Scripture. To sit and watch innocents slaughtered might come back to haunt you at some point.
By the way, Barbara Boxer's husband is not Republican and his company received no-bid contracts as well. Your point is taken and understood, is mine? Please try to understand that no-bid contracts are let by the government every single day of the year, including MLK Day. I find it hard to believe that Bush and Cheney called down to the purchasing office and told Jim-Bob to hook their friends up. I think that Jim-Bob might squeal for some cash and your side would be glad to ante up, as if they didn't search high and low to find the Jim-Bob, just to get a Republican President to fall to the level that our last Democrat President fell. Well, minus the rape. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime, as a matter of fact, I don't think that there are a whole lot of Democrats that reach the level of sleaziness of the Clintons. Chelsea included.
Also, understand that Bill Clinton was impeached because he used his position as Governor of Arkansas to whip his junk out at a woman and then went before a Grand Jury and committed a crime by lying about his tactics of persuation. He was impeached because he was a lying scumbag that thinks nothing of women and has proven that how many times?
How Pam's post has anything to do with George Bush and Iraq is beyond my slightest comprehension. Unless, it's simply tit for tat, which at this point the idiotic folks screaming for impeachment of Bush and Cheney do appear to be trying.
Still, I disagree with your opinions. Pretty much all of them.
And, Pam, once again I am sorry for junking up the place. It's just closed-minded Leftists irk the crap out of me. And they are all that way, every damn one of them.
This is one of the funnier things I've read in a while:
"It's just closed-minded Leftists irk the crap out of me. And they are all that way, every damn one of them."
posted by Ro at January 24, 2008 02:37 PM
Close minded? I am guessing you are open minded? Look back at the thread and see who comes off as the more close minded individual.
FYI: I am a registered republican and wear a cross around my neck. However I make my decision based on my beliefs, if I disagree with a republican I admit it, if I agree with a liberal I admit it. The problem with America is people just blindly follow their party and not their beliefs.
You should actually try being open minded and not just open mouthed.
Praying for you,
A.R. Wallace
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 24, 2008 04:49 PM
Mr/Mrs Wallace, I answered your rhetorical question in the most friendly manner that I possibly could. I simply assumed from the onset that you were a card-carrying Bush hater because of your condescending and accusatory tone of your comments. You hit on a couple of the Left's favorite targets, I apologize for stereotyping you by reading what you said.
I answered your question as honestly as I could and you attempted to bring a world of hurt down upon my head. You attacked me. If you see it differently, then again, I must apologize. and in the same manner that I apologized to steve, with all of the same humility.
As far as you being Republican and wearing a cross, I could not care less about that. I really tried to, too.
Yes, I am the closed-minded one. However, you never heard me speak. Asshole.
God understands I am not perfect and I will make up for that. It is a nice cross, I received it when I was taken on a private viewing of St. Peter's tomb. It was breathtaking.
A.R. Wallace
posted by A.R. Wallace at January 27, 2008 01:11 AM
With two days to go until the South Carolina primary, he's laying it all out for you right here. Those of you who complain that there are no conservatives left in the Republican party need to take a second look at Fred Thompson.
Here, Fred comments on President Bush's recent appeal to the Saudis to increase production in order to give oil prices some slack:
"It's not in the United States' long-term interest to go hat in hand begging people to do things that in the end we know they're not going to do," Thompson said.
"What we need to concentrate on is diversifying our own energy sources here in this country and opening up what oil reserves that we have here ... using nuclear more, using clean coal technology more and all the other things that we can do," Thompson said.
Self-reliance? Isn't that what our Founding Fathers and the others who settled this country were famous for? We need to get that back, and Fred can help lead the way. (Notice I said lead, not that he'd do it all for us. That's what nannies do.)
I pray you win in S.C. and your ball starts rolling
across this great land because without you it is going down a slippery slope under the hand of anyone else. If you make it and visit Maryland I'll put out
signs and whatever else I can do for you!
Depends which founding fathers you are talking about when you discuss self reliance. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all relied on many slaves, hardly the self sufficient type you imagine them to be.
An excellent interview, in which Fred expands upon the points he made during the recent South Carolina debate and throws a few well-aimed jabs at his competitors for the Republican nomination:
SENATOR THOMPSON: I think the basis of it is national security, national defense. John [McCain] was right, I think, with regard to Iraq and he stood tough during tough times and I think he turned out to be right. And I was the same place the whole time and have been. We agree on that. But John is wrong on some other important things and he was wrong when he voted against the Bush tax cuts.
GLENN: But wait a minute. I mean --
SENATOR THOMPSON: He says he's changed his mind about that now and, you know, sobeit. But, you know, I was there during part of that time and I voted the other way. I believed the other way then, I believe the other way now. He's certainly wrong with regard to the immigration bill that they tried to get the American people sign off on last year and they gave a resounding no and now everybody's getting tough on the border. But on taxes and immigration, especially, you know, I think he's wrong. But so is Huckabee as far as that's concerned.
I stole the title for this post from a line in this article by David Brooks in the New York Times today. Brooks' commentary adds to that of Rush Limbaugh yesterday:
All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns against each other. They are competing to play the victim. They are both accusing each other of insensitivity. They are both deliberately misinterpreting each other’s comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.
All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.
If Hillary Clinton loses, then it's a sexist slap in the face to feminism. If Barack Obama loses, then it's a racist slap in the face to blacks. And of course, who could forget the "angry and getting angrier" John Edwards? If he loses, it's a slap in the face to the poor and downtrodden, aka class warfare mongerers.
Basically, the whole Democrat primary is one big slapfest. But who has the biggest hand?
As the Hot Air headline reads, "Reap what you sow, Democrats." Or in other words, they've created a monster. Heh. This election season is going to be a lot more fun than I thought.
This article by Bruce Walker over at American Thinker is one of the better ones I've read about Ron Paul's presidential candidacy. While the congressman from Texas has a lot of excellent ideas about a return to federalism, smaller government, lower taxes and so on, there's that small matter of his wanting to crawl into a shell of isolationism.
But other parts of Paul's policies simply do not fit our age. The notion that we should disengage from the Middle East, for example, suggests that Israel is "just another nation," like, say, North Korea or Syria. The foundation of the Jewish state was based upon the undeniable facts of history continuing, dreadfully, through the Holocaust, that Jews are not "just another people," but are rather a persecuted people who were not welcome when escaping Nazified Europe. Ignoring that is ignoring salient history.
But don't take my word for it; read the whole thing for yourself.
First off - I am not spamming your site - just offering reasoned debate - okay?
Pam it isn't isolationism at all - it is anti-interventionist nation building like we have been engaged in.
I am an American Jew. I feel that we have done more damage to Israel with our foreign policy in the past two decades and now she is dying a death by a thousand cuts. We have weakened her by making her continually make concessions for peace by giving up land and territories which were her buffer zones. Those concessions have not yielded any real lasting peace, and yet she is being asked to give up more and more. Now we are asking her to give up half of Jerusalem. We arm and finance the Arabs 3 times more than what we give to Israel - didn't we just deliver arms to the Saudis today? How does that help Israel? It hasn't and it won't.
She is in much worse shape now then ever as far as having security. We have tied her hands in many respects and that has been bad for her too.
This foreign policy has been a disaster.
We should mind our own business and stop financing all these countries already, and let them deal with their problems in their own way without us butting in. As we continue to aid and arm everyone in the Middle East they will eventually use it against us as well, and they have.
Rest assured Ron Paul is for strong defense and retaliation. He voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. That is not isolationism.
There is a vast difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
oh and also, I think what is more appalling and alarming is the fact that our media is manipulating this election. They have not at all been fair in allowing ALL candidates to get their message across to the American people on the cable TV news. The voting irregularities in Iowa and New Hampshire have also been something that is being swept under the rug. This election process is being manipulated - there is no doubt about it. I don't even think Fred Thompson is getting a fair shake. Tell me how the media can call elections when only 20% of the precincts are reporting? As far as I am concerned it isn't even about Ron Paul - Something is just not right with the way these races have been polled, reported and ultimately how the votes have been counted.
Judy, yeah, I know what you mean about the media, they have NEVER manipulated anything to try to throw an election before, wonder why they just now started? That is just sooooooo unlike them completely. Sorry, I'm a smartass.
I researched all the candidates when I was trying to find for whom to cast my primary vote. I scoured their records. It took me over a solid month to weed through the crap and decide.
Paul is good on domestic economic policy, damn good, just two bad votes in ten years. And one really didn't count because the money that he voted to spend was offset with a greater amount in another area.
It's the sheer racism and the complete disregard for the fact that there are responsiblities to being the United States. Like it or not, we are the policemen of the world. We can reject that idea and everyone on the planet will perish.
Final thought, don't you think that it is odd that you have to begin your comment with the spamming disclaimer because of other Paulies?
Hi Judy; I know you aren't spamming my site! And I don't mind a reasoned discussion about Ron Paul at all. I hate to tell you that you haven't convinced me, but if he is the candidate for you, by all means vote for him. Isn't that what primary season all about?
I have to echo what Two Dogs said: it's the complete disregard that we have responsibilities, like it or not. Sure we can curl up on ourselves and let the rest of the world sort out their own problems, but then don't be surprised when there's a big conflagration somewhere and we end up getting involved because our interests are ultimately threatened. We are no longer a 3-month plus journey from other continents, we are only hours away. And it could take even less time for an armed missile to make its way here. The Islamofascists want us dead, make no mistake. We must maintain vigilance and if that means a military presence, then I am all for it.
I'd LOVE to get our troops out of Germany, though. Let those ingrates defend themselves. And I would LOVE to pull out of the UN. Why should our dollars continue to be the biggest funding of an organization that does its best to thwart us at every turn?
(It would be nice to get a little recognition for all the good we do around the world, but I am not a big believer in modern miracles.)
There are countries I'd rather we didn't support, like Saudi Arabia, but since we need oil, what to do? I suppose we could drill our own, but the lefties won't let us. In strategic alliances, you often have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Forgot to mention, I do agree with you about the media manipulation of the election, but that is what has always been done. It's just that as the world of the Internet and other alternative media sources expands, we are more aware of it. They are too, and they are fighting tooth and nail to keep their supremacy. That's why bloggers like you are so important!!!
yesh yeah yeah - I know the media has always manipulated things - but it is so damn blatant now and is even creeping onto the Internet. Anyway - I know I hadn't convinced you - that's ok. I just hate to see the other choices we have in our own party acting more like Democrats.
If we must be the world's policeman then we have to have some sort of sensible foreign policy. Right now our foreign policy has been a disaster as far as I am concerned. You have to admit that it seems lunatic to give arms and aid to the Saudis! including $123 million worth of sophisticated precision-guided bomb technology, (despite concerns from some members of Congress that the systems could be used against Israel) It's being sold as a multibillion-dollar arms package to bolster the defense of U.S. allies in the Gulf but who knows if those countries will continue to be our allies? or if they truly are now! Consider that Fifteen of the 9-11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon!!
And I will tell you that even many Israelis want Ron Paul. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/weisman1.html
Be that as it may - where exactly does it say we have responsibilities to police the world? Isn't that the job of the UN forces? and where exactly are our allies in helping us to police the world? Seems they have left the building. Islamofascists want everyone dead. That is nothing new. Whether we police the world or not - a big conflagration is coming, and whether we have a presence or not will not matter much especially since we are so global now.
In the meantime what are we becoming as a nation? We are losing an awful lot to be the world's policeman - it's everything our soldiers are supposedly fighting and dying for - Liberty and Freedom and all of the rights we have spelled out by our Founding documents. There's the irony, and its a painful irony at best.
Love ya Pam.
Keep up the good work.
If it's any consolation Fred's my second choice :)
I especially liked the way he beat up on the Huckster in the SC debate.
Two dogs ...racism? The head of the Austin NAACP came out in defense of Dr. Paul. "President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment."
The claim of racism was totally bogus.. you can even listen to Paul's interview on the Bill Moyers as well ...
Well, to completely ignore the NAACP as a blantantly racist institution is one thing. "He's not a racist because this racist says he's not." is not a strong argument, but maybe you discount those publications simply because Dr. Paul says to do that. I would be sued if I published something with my name on it without vetting it. The only reason that it has not been a bigger issue is because the MSM loves it and will make it an issue should Paul get the nod. Play it forward, please. I am simply pointing to your misguided statements about the bias being so blatant.
Something about the Rather thing with the completely fabricated National Guard lie seems a little more out in front to me. Trying to lie and smear, on the national news, a sitting President seems a little more harsh than excluding a racist fruitcake from news items. Call me crazy.
Two Dogs.. so then why wasn't Paul sued?
Look - you can discount the NAACP as a racist saying another racist isn't racist.. but Paul never wrote those pieces, and his actions and words and writings in his entire political career do not even match those writings. It is ludicrous to suggest he is a racist. There is absolutely no proof to that claim. He has taken responsibility for not being more careful about what had gone out under his name - and this claim has been around for some time - so this is nothing new - It's an old claim, and Paul being a racist has absolutely no credibility. The media and Republican establishment are just using the usual nasty tactics - and Paul knew they would. It's the usual means to divert discussion away from the real issues - like why our dollar is crashing.
Perhaps you ought to take a look at this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_most_important
Uh, what would someone sue Ron Paul for? Copyright infringement on racist statements?
And Conservative Republicans are not even paying attention to Ron Paul. He's a non-factor in the Republican Primaries to our side. True, some folks that like the hippie-lettuce will vote for him. Which is silly to the core.
Personally, I need a little more MAN in my President. Ha.
I do like his voting record on appropriation bills. Two bad votes on money in ten years is impressive. You can check my blog for that, if you would like.
Wanna know a little bit more about what "universal health care" would mean to you and your family? Two Dogs has a pretty good idea, so if you have a few minutes to spare, head on over to read his explanation of how it would work. It's not a pretty sight.
On a related note, the NHS (Britain's oh-so-fabulous government healthcare) is now looking to make the presumption that everyone wants to donate their organs upon death, and to up the ante propose that doctors identify potential donors among patients even before they are dead.
It brings to mind the "Bring Out yer Dead" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail...
Heard the "organ donor" story on the Mike Gallagher show this morning. He made an interesting case for the opt-out organ donor idea, based upon the sheer number of people who die while waiting for a donated organ vs. the number of people who simply don't bother to fill out the form on their drivers' license.
TD, I totally agree that the system is broken, so how do you propose to fix the system? You say "reduce demand or increase supply". Ok, I'll go along with that. What are your ideas on how to do that?
posted by Ro at January 14, 2008 08:12 PM
You really don't know? You remove the federal element entirely. Ro, it's very simple to look at medical care in this country and see where we went wrong. Think condom distribution in schools for instance, teenage pregnancy and STD's have exploded since that distribution began. What part of this is hard to understand for someone that has greater than a 60 IQ?
Hey, why don't you throw out that morality thing, too? It makes for such wonderful stuff like drive-bys and the like. Oh, Heaven forbid, someone might know the difference between right and wrong.
Not sure where you're going with that, TD. So the federal government requires schools to give out condoms? Wish I had been around for that...high school may have been a lot more fun. It's a pretty well documented fact that the first increase in teen pregnancy in many years happened last year. I'm also not getting how morality = no federal government, or how lack of government is going to reduce drive-bys. IQ 60 or not, I wasn't really looking for the special cases of teenagers or people who live in hard urban areas, more looking for something pertaining to us normal people, you know, getting sick or injured. I'm definitely not saying I think universal health care is the answer (I don't), but I'm not seeing your vision for how eliminating the federal government increases supply or reduces demand for medical services. So back to the question above: what are your ideas on how to do that?
posted by Ro at January 15, 2008 02:38 PM
Ro, there has not been one federal program regarding anything that was successful, I challenge anyone to find one. Our military doesn't count because it is set forth in our Consittution.
And no, it is not a well documented fact that teen pregnancy was lower and then went up just last year, Ro. It is a fact that the Left will try anything to manipulate statistics and so will the Right, that includes blatantly lying. You know that, but you want to believe that teen pregnancy exploded during Bush's reign, because he is the Anti-Christ or whatever terminology that you choose. It ain't true or abortion rates would have plummeted in the ago, following the pregnancy trend and they have not. So, in your mind, more married women are getting abortions to make up the difference? Hmmmm, I don't think so, but it wouldn't surprise me, I guess.
If you will notice in my post, there were THREE items there for reducing the cost of medical care. I would suggest that you focus on the third, unless you are willing to kill people to reduce the demand or send a bunch of homeless people to school to become doctors. Because most students do not want to contend with the oppressive weight of potential lawsuits in the medical field, they are leaning more toward finance and banking to make that high dollar. Check those reductions of enrollment in med school, they are falling fast. "It's well documented."
There exists a system of economics called "Capitalism." It is a very good system that weeds out the corruption and incompetence in corporations and industry because it focuses upon the method and profit margin, instead of trying to manipulate the end result, which is what government mandates do. Remove the restrictions and lawsuit elements, you reduce costs and increase efficiency and the cycle continues. Plus you also receive stuff like V**gra. Do you think that a cure for cancer exists in a federal program? No, it will come from the very same folks that made V**gra because they need new customers to keep rigid. (The spam commenting thingy wouldn't let me publish the drug name. Awesome.)
Do understand, I am not advocating that we abolish the federal government, but I am saying that our Fed has grossly overstepped its very distinct boundaries set by our Constitution. Our Supreme Court found "abortion" in the Constitution, need I say more?
"And no, it is not a well documented fact that teen pregnancy was lower and then went up just last year".
Errr...yes it is. Unless you want to call all stats on the subject crazy leftist propaganda, which I guess is what you're doing. Love to see other stats on this if you can find any. You are very interested in "real meanings" of things, and there are real numbers involving teen pregnancy, measured in pregnancies per thousand teenage girls. That number went down for 15 years, and then went up in 2006. Even the Crisis Pregnancy Centers take that to mean that teenage pregnancy went down, and then went up. Saying I think our president is the antichrist (which I, of course, never said), doesn't change that. Neither does it change the fact that the abortion rate has gone down as well. Every year since between 1980 - 2000. It looks like it did go up in 2000 for women under the poverty level (as it is currently calculated, which I know you disagree with). Nor does it change the fact that roughly 60% of women who get abortions already have children and yes, even married women get abortions.
"If you will notice in my post, there were THREE items there for reducing the cost of medical care"
While I do think that there's some validity to reducing demand (early detection, better education on how to keep from getting sick in the first place, etc) and increasing supply (yay med school scholarships or decreasing price of med school), but simply not paying for the "bloated federal program" that current dems are proposing isn't going to make it "easier to provide service" from where we are now. Unfortunately, I think if the fed govt were totally out of the medical field, we'd still have people dying of heart valve failure from fen-phen (phen-fen?), which in your happy idealistic capitalism, was flying off the shelves, even after it was shown to cause major damage to a third of those who used it. Just one example where I think the government should step in.
"Our Supreme Court found "abortion" in the Constitution"
I thought the supreme court found keep-your-nose-outta-women's-chachas (er...right to privacy) in the Constitution.
posted by Ro at January 15, 2008 07:10 PM
Ro, hair dryers cause cancer. Every single time that the government gets involved in something to supposedly protect health, thousands die.
I think that my statement regarding statistics was very plain. Leftists and Rightists lie, cheat, and steal to make those of you that are crazy enough to believe it, believe it.
Trusting a politician when he/she/it says something is silly. And trusting an agency or conglomeration that cites stats that bolsters their own argument is somewhat silly as well. I would suggest that you contact the Klan to find out if racism is on the rise.
Ro, from your own words, I think that you and I have very different opinions on who we trust with our own well-being. I truat me, you trust someone other than you. That's your own choice, but I choose to trust my own judgment.
And Ro, about statistics regarding teen pregnancy and abortion, there is a really easy way to explain the reduction of both. The entire state of California has refused to release those stats in their state since 1998. Oddly enough, California has the highest rate of both and the stats are linked on my blog. If truth is even remotely important to you, probably not.
Also, I am being exremely rude by commenting to you in Pam's comment section on topics posted on my blog. Sorry, Pam.
I'll Be On the Andrea Shea-King Show Sunday Night...
...to talk about the article I wrote for American Thinker about women voting for Hillary in order to show "solidarity" with another woman.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned the article in the first segment of today's show, which as you can imagine was a major thrill for me.
Click either here or here for info on Andrea's show. I'll be on between 10:30 and 11 p.m. ET, but the show actually gets underway at 9, and Andrea has a lot of good people lined up. Hope you can tune in!
By the way, I've decided to throw my OFFICIAL support to Fred as well. I've been excited about him for a while, and last night's debate performance clinched it for me.
Not that my "official support" means diddly squat in the real world...
Do I call myself a "Fredhead?" Er, no. I am one of his supporters, and will do all I can to help him win the Republican nomination. But if he doesn't win it? Yes, I'll be disappointed. But when it's all said and done, the sun will continue to rise in the east and I'll still be heading to my boring job every day. And I will support whomever ends up as the nominee.
I just really hope it's Fred. He's the best man for the job.
UPDATE: More on Fred from Rick Moran over at Rightwing Nuthouse.
My take on women responding to Hillary's tears over at American Thinker:
Then she nearly cried in New Hampshire, and the momentary metamorphous from cackling shrew to slumber party confidante was played over and over on the networks and online. By some kind of press-induced miracle, Hillary managed to beat Obama in the primaries there by three points. That may seem like small potatoes, but the big story here is that women came to Hillary's rescue by a margin of 51%-32% among single women, and a slightly smaller margin for married women.
Fight for the Female Vote or not?
The female voter's issues should be important in every facet of American life, not just to get a vote. One issue that would be a very big vote getter and also address a clear and present danger to females everywhere is to bring action/investigation to both the female military soldier missing one day before testifying against her superior or the Blackwater employee kidnapped, both women were raped. This is a seriously overlooked women's issue going on right now. Many female soldiers are scared to go out to the latrine after dark for fear of being assaulted or raped.
Regardless of the response that Senator Obama makes to many of the issues facing America today, he will never become President. He is one to not only talk about change but put his words into action. The Senator did admit that the surge has worked, but of course, that was not good enough. We constantly hear talk about substance, have you gone to his website lately. Every other candidate has been widely discussed in reference to their website and their plans for America, but with the Senator from Illinois things are done differently.
We can only look to judge each of the candidates by their laws. How many laws were co-authored by each of them first within their prospective State Legislature, and secondly now that they have been members of Congress.
We all know that Senator Clinton will be the nominee for the Democratic party, regardless to how the media tries to make us think they are against her before they are for her.
Think about it, how many White men in America take direction from a Black man? We all know that is not the norm. How many Black men in America take direction from a white woman, so we go thru the motions of pretending that he has a chance of becoming the first president of African decent. The Civil Rights Movement worked well for Blacks but became an even more powerful tool for white women.
"... everywhere is to bring action/investigation to both the female military soldier missing one day before testifying against her superior or the Blackwater employee kidnapped, both women were raped."
Thank you.
posted by husband-dude at January 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Just heard the mighty EIB reference this fine effort...
Ah, back to the "women shouldn't be able to vote" argument.
"Yet doesn't her commentary have some merit?" Sure, if you think the end of getting who YOU want into public office justifies stripping a full 50% of the population of their right to vote (including yours, Ms. Meister). Hell, while we're at it, why don't we disenfranchise the blacks? How about the Mexicans? Or let's go really old-school and just say only white, male, landed gentry get to vote.
"...it is kind of embarrassing...it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it..." Shouldn't the other side of the aisle have similar embarrassment that they can't get women, people of color, or young people to vote for it? The argument can easily be made either way.
More to the point: I think there was a large population of women who liked Senator Clinton's policies, had faith in her ability to lead, but were put off by her lack of emotion and were unable to connect with her on a personal level. I don't see any problem in women seeing a side of her they liked in her misty moment to clear up those concerns.
posted by Ro at January 11, 2008 01:23 PM
I believe that we, as a nation, are ready for a woman president.
I do not believe, however, we are ready for THIS woman to be president.
~ihwf
posted by ihavewebfeet at January 11, 2008 05:45 PM
I just finished watching the debate on Fox, and I'm now watching the candidates natter with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. This is the first debate of the election season that I'm weighing in on here, and want to get my thoughts down before rigor mortis sets in:
WINNER: Fred Thompson!
Fred nailed it! Whether it was the economy, national security, electability or our borders, he was spot on. Yes, he tends to say "uh" a lot, and as a former radio person that gets on my nerves. But the "uhs" were sandwiched in between a lot of great stuff. He jumped all over Mike Huckabee, and I think that's because he thinks Huckabee represents the greatest threat to him in SC. He said Huckabee was part of the "blame America first" contingency. He came out swinging and kept on hitting home runs.
Fred invoked the first round of applause for the night when he interrupted within the first half hour to address the Reagan Revolution and the "battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party." He also had some great one-liners, like the one about Iranians looking to meet "the virgins they're looking forward to seeing" when the discussion was about the recent Iranian gun boat incident.
He made an excellent point: if we force Musharref out of Pakistan, who will replace him? Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons, and those cannot fall into the hands of the Islamofascists.
The Fox focus group led by Frank Luntz also thought Fred was the clear winner. Fred was awesome; let's hope this trend continues. Was it really too little too late? We shall see. The pundits have been wrong before...
LOSER: Ron Paul
My gosh, that man gets loopier all the time. As my friend Tim wrote me, "He looks and sounds like a high school nerd who bought his way in. His point of view about Israel was way out of line from the main stream."
I would add that he seemed petulant, whiny and yes, totally out of touch, like Tim said. For example, when all the other candidates said they, as president, would agree that the commanders in the field (or on the sea) have the training and the on-the-spot ability to make cruicial decisions like the Strait of Hormuz incident, Paul started ranting about an aggressive going to war mentality. It got to the point where Brit Hume asked him exactly what it was that he was responding to.
He also said we need to stop treating Israel like a stepchild who has no responsibility, and that we need to let Israel sort out her own affairs with her Arab neighbors. Huckabee let him have it over that, and rightly so.
People say Fred Thompson is kind of a sourpuss, but have you seen Ron Paul's face when he's being criticized?
Surprise, according to the text message poll conducted by Fox, Paul is the winner thus far (35%), but we know the Ronulans are capable of spiking polls. I wouldn't take that seriously at all.
The others, in order of best to worst:
Mitt Romney: He continued to look presidential and sound presidential, and his comments were consistent. There was a point when he didn't directly answer a question posed by one of the commentators (can't remember what it was now, but that doesn't look too good.)
Oh wait, I remember: he was asked if, as president, he would support including an abortion benefit in a national healthcare plan as he did with the Massachusetts plan. He balked by saying something about the courts forcing him into it, and then veered off to answer a question asked to someone else.
I must say, the camera shots of Romney looking at Paul with incredulity during Paul's diatribes were classic.
Rudy Giuliani: Again, he stayed on message, and to appease those who said he relied too much on his experience as NYC mayor, he also talked about his stint as Associate Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. But really, his experience is based in NY, why shouldn't he talk about it? But he's lost a lot of his early sparkle. He's strong on national defense and fiscal responsibility. I wouldn't have a problem supporting him in the general election.
John McCain: McCain stayed on his path, but his comments sounded canned...I heard many of them during the last debate ("I'm the sherrif in the senate," "I won't be voted Miss Congeniality"). He keeps saying he's learned his lesson about amnesty, but did he really? And he mentioned climate change being something we can actually control, which for me is a major turnoff. Sorry, Maverick.
Mike Huckabee: Fred Thompson said Huckabee is a liberal at heart and Huckabee denies it, but is he really conservative? When defending his record on tax and spend in Arkansas, he employed a typical liberal tactic: "it's for the children." Children who received healthcare, education, etc., because of his generosity with taxpayer money. Whenever you hear about "the children," hold on to your wallet.
I did like his comeback about the religion question (that religious questions were off-limits for everyone else but him), but there were points where he acted and sounded like an annoyed parent putting a fractious child in place whenever he was responding to a criticism by another candidate. Very annoying indeed.
If only Fred had some experience as a CEO, and wasn't such a chum of McCain.
But, if he can grow to take back the GOP from the likes of the populism of Huckabee, or the liberal placation of McCain, it would be helpful.
Relying on one liners, constantly looking down to check notes doesn't help in my opinion.
WE shall see...
One glaring aspect, Romney answers the question of how to handle a potential recession in a very serious manner, while McCain and Fred sound Senatorial.
McCain was far worse, suggesting he is going to stop spending suddenly, after NOT doing the job for 24 years.
He had so much influence in the Senate, and has nothing but Campaign Finance Folly to show for it.
I've got to say, Fred did kick some tail this debate, but I wonder if it is too little too late for him to make a come back. Many in the focus group wouldn't vote for him because they felt he wouldn't win.
But I've got to say, Ron Paul has increasingly made himself look worse and worse at each debate, with this being the cream of the crop. and now that people have actually scratched the Huckabee surface, they're finding something they don't really like.
I could hear Paul's supporters' goofy screams throughout the nite.
posted by John Ruberry at January 11, 2008 08:10 PM
Ron Paul was awesome at this debate! If you think he made himself "look worse" than you obviously dont have a clue what he is talking about in the first place!
Whats wrong with Paul going against the mainstream? Isn't that what we need? I love the excuse with spiking the texting polls...how come no one has thought to do it with another candidate? Wake up =)
Listen retards, Ron Paul Won the fucking debate, so get your facts straight and take the fucking bloody tampon of propaganda out of your ass and realize the truth....
How is it that this man continues to be given a platform upon which to spew his bile?
If Olbermann wants to give opinion, fine. He should call himself a commentator and then he can say anything he wants AS LONG AS IT'S BASED IN FACT! But to call himself a "newsman" and deliver untruths in the name of hard reporting is not only irresponsible, but nauseating.
I'll be going to the CPAC convention in Washington D.C. February 7-9. Confirmed speakers include Dr. Mike Adams, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Rick Perry, Ben Shapiro and others. There'll be booksignings, exhibits, and more. I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl!
For more info on CPAC, click here. I hear last year was fantastic...here's hoping this year will be just as good, if not better!
When Ideology and Science Collide: Iraq Casualty Study Debunked
Over at FamilySecurityMatters.org today:
In their all-consuming desire to make President Bush look bad and, at that time, in an effort to “dethrone” him, ideology trumped up as science may well have put the lives of American troops and civilians working to rebuild Iraq in greater jeopardy.
My take on Hillary's crocodile tears over at FamilySecurityMatters.org:
Why is a woman who claims to be tough on the issues suddenly breaking down during a public campaign appearance? True, she was surrounded by women, not men, and perhaps she felt “safe” in shedding a few tears in that environment. But as president, if she’s elected, she won’t have the luxury of being surrounded by other women who will be sympathetic to her need to cry. She’ll be dealing with tough and often unscrupulous men (think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, for starters) who do not have time for tears and would interpret them as weakness. We cannot afford to have a weak occupant in the White House. Remember Jimmy Carter? The stakes are even higher now.
No crying, she's an ice queen. One tear, and she's not tough enough to be president. How many times has Romney cried in public during the last couple of months? Maybe three? Do I sense a double standard here?
You even point out some of the typical double standards -- both for strong women and emotional men -- but you seem to take the attitude that it is what it is, and why should we change it? That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
"Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up to honest analysis." ~ George MacDonald Fraser, author of the Flashman books
UK Blogger to be Arrested for Shining the Light on Islamic Jihad
Holy crap, it's come to this: British blogger Lionheart is to be arrested for speaking out against those Muslims who would take over not just Britain, but America and the rest of the Western world in order to create a 21st Century caliphate under radical Islam, and either force us to live under dhimmitude, force us to convert, or outright kill us.
I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.
This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.
The cultural weapon in the hands of the modern Jihad within Great Britain, silencing the opposition using our own laws against us - The Dumb Filthy Kaffir's as the Moslem would say to his children behind closed doors.
What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society.
At least my words of truth have obviously now reached people's eyes and ears, with the powers that be now intent on silencing me - Third World Tyranny in a supposed 21st Century democracy!
It pains me to say it, but I really feel Britain has gone beyond the edge and I don't know if it's possible for them to pull back. Thanks to nearly two decades of namby pamby Labour rule, this once great nation with a strong national identity now is run by a bunch of mewling, puking imbeciles who bow and scrape at the altar of multiculturalism and moral relativism.
I can hear Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Victoria and the great Winston Churchill all rolling in their graves from this side of the Atlantic.
Still think the idea of "hate speech" and "hate crime" legislation is a good idea here? What exactly is Lionheart guilty of? Did he kill anyone, or incite anyone else to go out and kill others? No. He is guilty of the crime of national pride, and of trying to save his culture from another that would come in and swallow it whole.
Freedom of speech was written into our Constitution. Britain does not have such a specific condition that I know of, but freedom of political expression there has never been in the kind of danger that it is today.
Why did they bother overcoming the Nazis, only to be overcome by the Islamofascists?
I wish Lionheart well in his efforts to beat this ridiculous rap.
UPDATE: Van Helsing at Moonbattery weighs in as only he can.
A commenter over at Gates of Vienna suggested that Lionheart seek political asylum in the US. It is an action I strongly support since he is being persecuted for exercising his freedom of speech. I believe the US just might grant him asylum on human rights grounds.
The USA apparently is following in this 'Political Correct' madness. US has hate laws that are extremely politically selective in their enforcement. This is a highly contageous disease sweeping the world. Harsh, decisive, Intervention will only come when the time is right. Are we all prepared? I, among countless others in the world, know a very Good Book on the subject.
posted by Blogengeezer at January 7, 2008 08:52 AM
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/07/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Thanks to nearly two decades of namby pamby Labour rule, this once great nation with a strong national identity now is run by a bunch of mewling, puking imbeciles who bow and scrape at the altar of multiculturalism and moral relativism.
Good post. You above quote sounds frighteningly familiar to what the Democrats are doing to America (just switch the word "Labour" for Dem and you've got it). Sadly, too few people will see Britain's error and recognize our own similar folly. But thanks for the wake up call.
Iowa Voters Say "Neigh" to the Dark Horse Candidate: Chris Dodd Returns to Work
It's the end of an era.
Chris Dodd entered the presidential race with a fizzle and left with a whimper. After physically moving to Iowa for several months to woo caucus goers there, he's decided it ain't so bad being our senator after all, and returns to his duties with his head held high and his tail tucked between his legs.
During his speech to supporters last night, Dodd said, "This evening Democrats sent a clear message that this party is united in our belief that our nation needs change to restore our security, our middle class and all that makes this country great."
They also sent a clear message that they didn't want him. Heh.
He spent the last year campaigning, as he announced his candidacy on January 12, 2007. During that time there have been 442 Senate votes. Out of those votes, Dodd missed a total of 166. That's 37%, more than one third. (I know because I counted!) What the heck are we paying him for, anyway?
Sure, you say, he was busy campaigning for president. But can you imagine your boss being happy if you missed out on one third of your scheduled workdays because you were busy interviewing for another job? Can you say "canned" boys and girls? When we, members of the lower orders, look for new employment, we do it on our own time. I think the same should apply for elected officials who decide they want to run for a more prestigious office: they should resign from their current office (or not run for re-election) before jumping into another race.
But don't expect them to pass that resolution any time soon.
As for "dark horse" Chris Dodd, he's doing what I said he would way back when: heading back to his cushy job as Connecticut's other senator. He and his trophy wife will come back with their two kids and it'll be life as usual.
Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be back up for election in 2010. I can see his slogan now: "Connecticut's good enough for me!"
Say it isn't so!! I don't want Dudd "back to work" At least when he was living in Iowa, he wasn't doing any harm to the rest of us. Now that he's back, we will have to hear the angriest man in Congress complain about something or other.
You know, there was a lot of talk about the resignation of office when Bob Dole did it, the media actually said that it was the law at that time. Of course, you had four Democrat Senators that all sought the nomination this year as well as one representative and a governor.
Somehow, I think that all Democrat Senators should be required to run for President every election cycle. I simply do not want them in Washington at all.
Disrespecting the Military: The Proud Moonbat Tradition Continues
My latest at FamilySecurityMatters.org:
Back in the ‘60s, college students and hippies (often interchangeable) despised the military and the Vietnam War because, frankly, they didn’t want to be drafted and go through the horrors of war and possibly die. Today, even though young men have to sign up for selective service upon reaching the age of 18, there is no draft. Our military is strictly voluntary, and standards are so high that not even all who volunteer are accepted. So you might think that anti-military bias would have gone the way of the dodo – but you’d be wrong.
I have a modest little blog that doesn't fly very high on the radar. So imagine my surprise upon receiving the following e-mail:
Dear UnAmerican Blogger,
Talk more about Ron Paul in your blogs, please. No one is interested in corrupt
Kleptocrats that will never win the nomination. Ron Paul will win, and you will be shunned if you keep talking about Kleptocrats.
I'm from Connecticut also.
Thank You,
Lew (last name deleted for privacy)
P.S. If you sincerely don't know about Ron Paul, my apologies. Please Google Ron Paul ASAP.
My reply:
Dear Lew,
I write about whom I please. I know who Ron Paul is, and while he has some good ideas about taxes and smaller government, I find his isolationist rants not only unrealistic, but scary in today's world. He may have raised a lot of money, but there's no way he'll win either the nomination or the general election, even if he runs on a third party ticket.
If my posts about "Kleptocrats" means that I'll be shunned by people belonging to the Ron Paul "cult," I'll be happy to continue down the same path. Trying to coerce me to write about your candidate with silly threats is ridiculous. Who's being un-American here?
Thanks for writing...it's been very illuminating!
Pam
I've seen how Ron Paul's supporters (more like followers) deluge comment sections at other blogs, and it makes me laugh to think that my writing about this guy could make him more than just a tiny blip on the nation's radar screen.
You must have spelled out his name. The Ronulans regularly google for it, then descend upon any site that doesn't mention The Paul in an appropriately worshipful way.
Hi Pam,really like the website. I don't know if you've seen this before, but you might be shocked to read this column by Eric Dondero, a guy who used to work for Paul. I thought Paul was a pacifist after watching one of the debates, but this confirmed it, and also confirmed that the guy is an absolute loon. At least in my opinion anyway.
ENDORSEMENTS
"Your stupid requirements for commenting, whatever they are, mean I'll not read you again." ~ "Duke Martin", Oraculations
"One of the worst sites I've read." ~ Frank A. Niedospial
